Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 73) and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I stand in enthusiastic support of H. Con. Res. 6, which urges the Department of Defense to continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of Boy Scouts of America, and particularly letting them have jamborees on military posts and bases.

When we look at the name Boy Scout, to call somebody a Boy Scout in society today, it is a term that one would say this guy is squeaky clean. This is a good kid. This is a hard worker. This is somebody who likes his family. Indeed, if we step back and see what the Boy Scout organization is about, there are strong things of God, family, and country, which of course the ACLU cannot stand. The ACLU seems to wake up in the morning and look for ways to tear down great institutions in our society; so it is no wonder they would again attack another one, with the Boy Scouts being their goal.

What do kids learn in Boy Scouts? The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) just talked about how it can help kids who do not have fathers, who may have had a broken home and a hard life. What does it teach them? It teaches them the value of hard work. It teaches them goal- setting. It teaches them team effort, community service. It is open to all. It teaches them respect for one another.

Boy Scouts is a good organization, and in our society in order for a representative democracy to thrive as it has, we need good civic clubs like Rotary and Kiwanis.

We need good nonprofit institutions like the Cancer Society and the Heart Fund and the United Way. We need good churches and good synagogues. But for children, young people growing up, these things start out with youth groups at church, 4-H Clubs, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Young Life, YMCA and, of course, the Boy Scouts. This is about the United States of America and developing good citizens.

So I urge the passage of H. Con. Res. 6, so that the Boy Scouts can continue to have these important jamborees that teach the kids so many good instructional values as they grow up, and have these things hosted on military bases when practical and necessary.

Mr. Speaker, most people will remember Ossie Davis as the deep-voiced actor who paved the way for African-American performers. He helped widen horizons for blacks on stage and screen while fighting for civil rights from Washington to Hollywood.

Born in Codgell, Ga, in my district, Raiford Chatman Davis was known as ``RC.'' This was later misunderstood to be ``Ossie'' and he kept the name his entire life.

Ossie Davis grew up in Waycross and Valdosta, Georgia. He later hitchhiked to Washington, DC to attend Howard University to study drama. Ossie Davis had intended to be a writer, but his fame came from his incisive and wide-ranging acting performances over five decades, even as he wrote plays and screenplays and directed and produced.

Ossie and his wife, Ruby Dee, were married in 1948. Their marriage was a true partnership, and during their decades together they worked to make America a better place. They entertained us in the films and theater productions they starred in together. They were tireless activists during the civil rights era. They persevered when blacklisted during the McCarthy era. Nothing shook their devotion to each other or to the causes that motivated them.

In December, when Ossie Davis was honored at the Kennedy Center, Sean ``P-Diddy'' Combs said that Davis helped pave the road for two generations of black performers.

Ossie Davis said that night, ``We knew that every time we got a job and every time we were onstage, America was looking to make judgments about all black folks on the basis of how you looked, how you sounded, how you carried yourself. So any role you had was a role that was involved in the struggle for black identification. You couldn't escape it.''

In an example of art imitating life, Ossie Davis delivered the eulogy in the film ``Malcolm X.'' it was the same eulogy he had actually delivered at Malcolm X's memorial service. Davis was politically active, especially with the civil rights movement, and he was also an opponent to Senator Joseph McCarthy's Communist witch hunt of the 1950s.

[From the Ledger, Feb. 9, 2005]

Ossie Davis Was a Trailblazer in Life, Art

(By Wendell Brock)

Ossie Davis helped break the color barrier on Broadway, was

a quiet but conscientious force in the civil rights movement

and--late in his 65-year career in the entertainment

industry--became a picture of cool among a younger generation

of African-American artists, including filmmaker Spike Lee,

pop mogul Sean P. Diddy Combs and Atlanta director Kenny

Leon.

The tall, lumbering Davis and his wife, the actress Ruby

Dee, were a luminous and nearly inseparable celebrity couple.

Together, they received the National Medal of the Arts from

President Clinton in 1995 and the prestigious Kennedy Center

Honors last year.

But at the end of the day, Davis, who died Friday at 87,

remained a generous, easily approachable senior statesman for

the arts who never forgot his humble beginnings as the son of

a South Georgia railroad worker who could not write his name.

``He was just a model of how you can be an artist and an

activist, that one did not negate the other,'' Lee said

Friday. ``That one did not have to be scared that if you

speak out, it would kill or wipe out your career. It is a

great loss, but we will celebrate his life.''

``Ossie and Ruby are like the godfather and godmother of

American theater,'' said Leon, recalling how the couple

attended previews of his Broadway production of ``A Raisin in

the Sun'' last year and gave notes to stage newcomer Combs.

``Ossie is certainly the soul of black theater.''

Davis, who was in Miami Beach filming a comedy called

``Retirement,'' was found dead in his hotel room early Friday

morning. The passing of the tall, robust octogenarian with

the rich baritone caught his family and colleagues by

surprise.

At the time of her husband's death, Dee was in New Zealand

working on her own film project. A family spokesman said

Friday afternoon that the actress was en route to the

couple's home in New Rochelle, N.Y., and that arrangements

would be announced later.

Besides Dee, Davis is survived by three children: Nora;

Hasna; and Guy, a blues artist; and seven grandchildren.

Dee and Davis were frequently in Atlanta, where she starred

in ``St. Lucy's Eyes'' at the Alliance Theatre, and they were

honored by the Atlanta Film Festival, both in 2003. They

made frequent appearances at Spelman, Morehouse and Morris

Brown colleges, as well as Clark Atlanta University.

``He and Ruby Dee were like the Lunt and Fontanne for

African-Americans, and all of us as Americans,'' said Kent

Gash, associate artistic director of the Alliance Theatre.

``He was just always so real, and that was always so true

about his work, both as an actor and as a writer. He just

quietly pushed a lot of barriers out of the way and continued

to do this amazing work for an incredible period of time. . .

. He paved the way for so many of us in American theater.''

C.B. Hackworth, the writer and producer of the special,

said Davis told him he had been ill when they met him in

early January to do filming.

``He said, `I'm not at my best, but don't worry, I'll do it

as many times as you need.' He was a consummate

professional,' '' Hackworth said.

The oldest of five children, the artist was born Raiford

Chatman Davis in tiny Cogdell, Ga., on Dec. 18, 1917, and

grew up in nearby Waycross and Valdosta. His mother's

pronunciation of his initials R.C. was heard as Ossie. He

left home in 1935, hitchhiking to Washington to enter Howard

University, where he studied drama, intending to be a

playwright.

By 1939, he'd made his way to Harlem, N.Y., where he got

work as an actor and mingled with the likes of Langston

Hughes, W.E.B. Du Bois and Richard Wright.

He and Dee first worked together in the 1946 Broadway play

``Jeb.'' In December 1948, on a day off from rehearsals from

another play, they took a bus to New Jersey to get married.

``They were so close that it felt almost like an

appointment we finally got around to keeping,'' Dee wrote in

their 1998 autobiography, ``In This Life Together.''

``I thought it was a pretty good use of a Thursday,'' Davis

wrote with his trademark pithiness.

He appeared in dozens of TV programs and more than 30

films, beginning with 1950's ``No Way Out,'' with Dee and

Sidney Poitier, and culminating in last year's ``She Hate

Me.''

But perhaps his most enduring film legacy is his six-

picture run with Lee: ``School Daze,'' ``Do the Right

Thing,'' ``Jungle Fever,'' ``Malcolm X,'' ``Get on the Bus''

and ``She Hate Me.''

``When he started working with Spike Lee, it revitalized

his career,'' said film historian Donald Bogle. ``I actually

think he's better (in the Lee films) than he was as a younger

actor. He's so powerful, so assured.''

Davis and Dee often found themselves in the eye of social

and political change.

With a voice as comforting and mellifluous as a country

preacher, he gave eulogies at the funerals of the Rev. Martin

Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, whom he called ``our own black

shining prince--who didn't hesitate to die, because he loved

us so.''

Besides his extensive acting and directing credits for

stage, film and TV, Davis was the author of eight plays,

including 1961's ``Purlie Victorious,'' a comedy lampooning

racial stereotypes.

In 1970, Davis co-wrote the book for ``Purlie,'' a musical

version of the play. A revival of the musical is planned for

Broadway next season.

The rousing gospel song, ``Walk Him up the Stairs,'' is a

highlight of that show. Sung at a funeral, it is likely to

have a special resonance when Davis' story returns to

Broadway.

``He took the hearts of millions with him, and I will never

get over not having him to talk to,'' said actor Burt

Reynolds. ``I'll still talk to him every night, I know he's

sitting next to God, now, and I know God envies that voice,

and I hope he listens when Ossie tells him his ideas of what

brotherhood means.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak tonight about Social Security and some of the debate that is going on. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for putting forth a proposal, because I think it is important for Democrats to put forth proposals, because it seems like a number of Members of Congress are still in denial that there is a problem, and they kind of argue a little bit about nomenclature. They might say, well, it is a problem, but it is not a crisis. It is kind of like this: if my house is on fire, it is a crisis, but if I have termites eating away at the foundation, that is a problem. Either way, you have to address it.

I appreciate President Bush for somewhat following in President Clinton's footsteps and saying we have to address this. President Clinton actually did say that the Social Security situation was a crisis. I do not want to get bogged down in that.

Here is what we know. In the year 2018, because of so many baby boomers retiring, more money will be going out of the system than is coming in. Real simple. In the year 2042, everybody seems to be agreeing that by then we will have exhausted whatever money is in there and, if we want to continue the Social Security program, we have to reduce the benefits by 27 percent.

Now, what the President has said is that if you take that 12.4 percent and you take 2 percent of it and put it into a personal investment account similar to the Thrift Savings Account that most Members of Congress have, and I know there are a lot of Democrats, probably all the Democrats have it, I know probably all the Republicans have it, but if you let people have plans like that, that it would out- perform their Social Security.

The President is saying, we do not want to increase taxes, we do not want to cut benefits, we certainly do not want to endanger survivor benefits or benefits for children. There has been a suggestion by the previous speaker that those would be in jeopardy. That is not the case at all.

But here is what my staff was able to get me today on what that government, the Thrift Savings Account which so many Members of Congress and most members of the Federal employment have. You go in there and you select a certain amount of investments. You can choose between A, B, C, or D. But in the G fund, for example, the last 10 years, it has earned on average 6 percent. The C fund, it has earned on average over the last 10 years, 11 percent. The F fund, which is a fixed income investment, 6.9 percent over the last 10 years. And the S fund, which is a relatively newer fund, it has earned about 5.3 percent since 2001. There is also a newer ``I'' fund, but it has only been up for 2 years.

Now, how can we as a society say to a 25-year-old just entering the workplace that for the next 40 years, you have to work and receive on your Social Security benefits about 2 percent, when you could have what your Member of Congress has: a fund where you choose anywhere from a return of 5 percent to 11 percent, or more. And these are 10-year averages, and if you look at the lifetime of the stock market versus the lifetime of Social Security return, certainly you would be making more money.

But why is the President doing this? He is doing this because the Social Security program was started in 1935. At that time there were 60 workers to every one retiree. In the 1950s, there were 16 workers to every retiree. And today, there are three workers per retiree, and soon it will be down to two workers per retiree. And that is why we have to take advantage of some of the new products that are out there in the financial investment world. A lot of people say, well, why do we change this program? Again, we change it because that worker-to-retiree ratio has changed so much.

Now, I have a dad who is 87 years old, a mom who is 80 years old, my wife, her parents are both alive. They all get Social Security, and they depend on Social Security. What I am reassured by is that for them, retirees and near retirees, people aged 55 and up, there is going to be no change. For the people who are younger than them, it is a voluntary program.

But when I go on college campuses, as I did last week in St. Mary's, Georgia, to Coastal Georgia Community University, I say to them, how many of you think Social Security will be there for you, and zero hands go up. I say, wait a minute, there are survivor benefits, spouse benefits, other options that are out there, other ways to get Social Security money and still, they all say, it is not going to be there for us.

We owe it to the next generation to protect and preserve Social Security and do something today. Every year that we postpone it, it is another $600 billion deeper in the hole. We have to address this.

I want to close with this, Mr. Speaker. I know I am out of time. I know again my friend from Oregon says he has a proposal; we need to look at it. We need to look at all of the proposals, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and together we need to come together for what is in the best interests of all generations of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. It is a great honor to be here with so many distinguished members of the Committee on Ways and Means. And I wanted to follow up on the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Brady) comments because I think it is important for us to know that President Clinton actually did say many times over that Social Security was in a crisis stage and we needed to do something about it. Similarly, the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Brady) former colleague, Mr. Stenholm, co-sponsored a bill with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and, as I understand it now, will be working now that he is not in Congress, but he is a Democrat taking a leadership position, which we certainly appreciate, and then of course we had former Senator Breaux from Louisiana, Democrat, and former Senator, now deceased, Moynihan, who have all championed Social Security reform and really have basically supported many of the ideas that the President and the gentleman has promoted.

So I think it is very important for us to tell our friends on the other side we want their ideas. We may not agree with absolutely everything. We might not agree with some of these things from the start, but we want all the ideas on the table because this is not about Republican or Democrat; it is not about re-election. It is about the next generation, and we need to protect and preserve Social Security for everybody.

So I certainly appreciate what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) does, and I appreciate his yielding to me so I could make a point. And I know the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who has a great financial mind, has some things to say; so I do not want to take up any more time.

Mr. Speaker, I dipped my finger in purple ink today in symbolic unity and in support of the free election in Iraq, the first free election in the history of that country. Their actions this weekend were not about America or necessarily an endorsement of everything we are doing, although I think that was an effect of it; but their actions were really about a free country, about democracy, about choice, about self-government and self-determination, throwing off the shackles of oppression and joining the world community. A 57 percent voter turnout in the face and threat of death and destruction. Compare that to America, 61 percent just this November, and it was the highest voting turnout in 38 years. Or in my home county in Savannah, Georgia, Chatham County, the last time we elected a Governor, we had a 48 percent voter turnout and no one was threatened with death or suicide bombers or anything like that.

It took America 7 years to win the Revolutionary War and then it was not until 1789 that we threw out the Articles of Confederation and adopted our Constitution. It has taken us many, many years. For Iraq they have many struggling years ahead, but they have taken a very important first step.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, insurgents in Iraq this weekend had vowed to wash the streets in blood. Yet, despite all their threats of people who were going to get killed and places that were going to be bombed, and indeed 43 people were killed, despite all that, voters turned out, of course, in record numbers because the election itself was a record.

One voter said on Sunday that each vote was a bullet in the heart of the enemy. We are defeating the terrorists in coming here, he said proudly, as he dipped his finger in the famous purple ink. This was done in over 30,000 polling places. And now the votes are being counted.

When we look at the turnout, nearly 60 percent, we are not really sure what the turnout officially is, but compare that to the United States presidential election just this November of a 60.7 percent voter turnout. Yet no one was threatened to be killed. That was the highest turnout in the United States of America in 38 years. Indeed, in my home county in Savannah, Georgia, Chatham County had a turnout of a mere 48 percent 2 years ago when we elected the Governor of Georgia.

So for them under these circumstances to have a 60 percent voter turnout, it is phenomenal; but it is also a huge statement on how badly people want freedom, how badly they want to throw off the shackles of oppression, and how they value the opportunity to vote.

The U.S. Marines said that watching voters go to the polls was a spectacular and a wonderful payoff of the magnitude of the well- visualized photo of their knocking down Saddam Hussein's statue 2 years ago in Baghdad. And the people who died, the 43 lives who are no longer with us, they should all be remembered along with the other heroes who made the day possible. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

It took the United States of America 7 years to fight the Revolutionary War to win its independence from Britain, and then it was not until 1789 that we threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote our own Constitution. And yet we fought a Civil War since then and we have had lots of struggles and lot of amendments to our Constitution. Indeed, over 200 years later, we are still fighting and working on this experiment that we call democracy, representative democracy.

What the world needs to do right now is to support Iraq in this endeavor. It is time for folks around the globe to say this did serve as a referendum and a statement; now let us reach out and do what we can to help Iraq become independent.

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, in the year 2018, Social Security will start paying out more money than it is bringing in. In the years 2035 to 2042, somewhere in that range, it will be out of money, and it will force a benefit cut of 27 percent.

Now, that is not a burning crisis today, but it is a slow-burning problem that we in the U.S. Congress need to address. We should do it with a couple of parameters: that we are not going to cut the benefits, we are not going to increase taxes, we are not going to change Social Security for retirees or near retirees. But we should act responsibly in a bipartisan manner to protect and preserve Social Security and not use it for our advantage in the next election, but come up with long- term solutions for the next generation.

I invite my Democrat colleagues to come in with their ideas. And I would say to Independents and conservatives and liberals alike, let us put these ideas on the table, let us address this situation together in a bipartisan fashion, and let us do it for the sake of my parents, my dad is 87, my mom is 80; and for your parents; and also, again, for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to request permission to address the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have been asked by our Democratic colleagues to take this objection to the vote today seriously. We have been told this is not frivolous.

Well, we have to ask, why Ohio? Why Ohio, the State that happened to put President Bush over the top? Why not Minnesota where Kerry won, where there were discrepancies and Democrat groups working inside polling places at polling booths? Why not New Hampshire where Kerry won where Democrat operatives allegedly slashed wheels of vehicles intended to take Republicans to the polls? Why not Wisconsin which Kerry won where Democrat operatives physically intimidated Republican voters? Or why not even Colorado where a Democrat worker with ACORN signed herself up to vote 25 different times? Or why not New Mexico where a 13-year old was registered to vote by the same Democrat front group? And why not some of the other problems that were going on in Ohio, why do we not talk about them?

For example, in Franklin County in Ohio where a dead person was registered to vote, or 25 addresses were submitted for the same man, why are they not concerned about that? Or why not raise a question about Lake County where a man who had been dead for 20 years was registered to vote?

Our Democrat colleagues do not seem to be concerned about that, and yet here is the serious charge of that complaint by Reverend Bill Moss: A, that there was a computer in the White House hooked up to voting booths in Ohio which was allegedly controlled by some super agent who could change the results of those elections in Ohio from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I do not think even Hollywood would even buy into that;

B, there were numerous agents who were doing ``unidentified things'' to intimidate voters;

C, that a Democrat Supreme Court candidate received more votes than John Kerry; therefore, the election is a fraud; and

D, because the exit polls showed Kerry was going to win, he should have won. The only thing that I know that are less realistic than exit polls are Godzilla movies, and yet that is what the basis of this attack was.

We have heard that many voters had to stand in line for 3 hours. My dad is 87 years old. He is blind. He is very inconvenienced when he votes. He has to have assistance, yet as a World War II veteran and survivor, he is proud to wait 3 hours to vote. He only wishes more of his peer group was alive to have the same honor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our Capitol Police Officers. On December 31, 2004, Captain Gilman G. Udell will retire after 33 years of serving the Congress as a member of the United States Capitol Police (USCP). Captain Udell spent the majority of his career, and finished as the commanding officer, of the USCP Hazardous Incident Response Division. Captain Udell was one of the six original members of the USCP bomb squad, first organized in the Spring of 1974. To exemplify Captain Udell's fine work in this area, one must review the threat environment over the last 30 years.

On March 1, 1971 a bomb exploded in a restroom on the first floor of the Senate wing of the Capitol, causing extensive damage. After that incident, the Department selected six officers to attend the basic bomb course at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. When Gill Udell and the other original members returned to Washington after completing the training at Redstone Arsenal, their new unit became part of the Special Investigations Division.

Over the 30 years of its existence, the Bomb Squad has excelled at developing and adapting new tools and techniques for rendering safe procedures. Members of the unit work with other Federal agencies such as the FBI, ATF, DoD and DoE, as well as private contractors in the defense industry to stay current with new technology and to promote the development of new tools and techniques for the bomb technician community. Captain Udell has been instrumental in every measure of this development.

Although most of the calls received by the Bomb Squad each day turn out to be nothing harmful, there have been a number of incidents over the years in which the danger was real.

July 4, 1976: An individual was stopped who had been acting suspiciously, looking at the grates on the West Front. When searched, the suspect admitted having home-made explosive devices, 1" x 6" inch lengths of cardboard tubing with non-electric fuses. Each of these bombs packed the explosive power of about a quarter stick of dynamite. The devices were transported to Ft. Belvoir, where the ATF assisted in detonating them. The suspect had intended to light the devices and throw them into the crowd.

September 26, 1980: A Chevy pickup truck being used as an incendiary device tried to crash the South Wall of the Capitol building.

May 20, 1982: A hoax device consisting of red candles with a sparkly coating that looked like dynamite and a clock placed inside a shoe box inside a paper bag, was found in the office of the Clerk of the House.

October 18, 1983: At 1330 hours, a male foreign national entered House Gallery #10 with a device that consisted of two one-liter soft drink bottles filled with homemade black powder, a slide switch for control, flash bulb as an initiator, and a battery for a power source. The man stood up and, instead of exiting, walked down to the front, meanwhile trying to flip the switch on his device. Fortunately, the black powder mixture was not mixed correctly, so the device did not go off. The suspect was apprehended as soon as he walked towards the rail, and was eventually deported back to Israel after this event.

November 7, 1983: At 2255 hours, a detonation occurred on the second floor of the U.S. Capitol, opposite the Republican Cloak room, causing extensive damage. The device was constructed of 4 to 5 pounds of dynamite, a battery, electric blasting cap and watch, all placed in a gym bag. Credit for the explosion was claimed by a group calling itself The Armed Resistance Unit. Seven militants belonging to the group were convicted of this bombing in 1990.

August 20, 1984: A Molotov Cocktail was thrown and ignited on the East Front, Center Steps portico, by the 2nd floor entrance. One bystander, a Priest, was injured. The device consisted of a beer bottle filled with gas and containing a wick, and was ignited with a lighter. The perpetrator was arrested.

March 15, 1986: A letter bomb addressed to a senator was intercepted by the U. S. Post Office. The device, consisting of a hollow antenna segment filled with match heads, battery, and wire heating element, had been made by a prisoner and sent from a prison in Kansas.

April 19, 1988: The FBI called the Hazardous Devices Section for assistance. While executing a search warrant, FBI agents discovered deteriorated nitroglycerine-based dynamite in a suspect's closet. The HDS responded, removed, transported and destroyed the dynamite.

June 21, 1988: A hoax device designed to resemble a hand grenade was sent to a Congressman's office but was intercepted by the House Post Office. The item was detonated during render safe procedures performed by the Hazardous Devices Section.

December 5, 1990: A subject attempted to enter the Dirksen Senate Office Building with a hoax device consisting of three signal flares, a clock, wires and a circuit board.

January 3, 1995: Just three weeks after the Bomb Squad acquired its new, state-of-the-art Andros robot, a suspected pipe bomb was found at 3rd and Independence Ave., SW., and the Metropolitan police contacted HDS for assistance. When remote procedures could not open the device, it was placed in the bomb sphere truck and transported to the Marine Corps explosives range at Quantico, Virginia, where it was counter- charged and blown open. The device turned out to be a sand fuse belonging to METRO.

The Capitol Police Bomb Squad is rated by the FBI Bomb Data Center and staff of the Hazardous Devices School at Redstone Arsenal as one of the top bomb squads in the Nation. The unit has achieved recognition throughout the bomb technician community through their assistance to other agencies and service in offices and positions in professional associations and organizations.

Captain Udell successfully led the Unit through many changes as the Department's mission evolved in recent years. The unit that started with a home-made bomb truck put together from donated and surplus parts is today equipped with state-of-the-art technology. Captain Udell was one of the first to recognize the need for specialized training in

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Hazardous Materials. Years before the Anthrax Letter was received in Senator Daschle's Office, all the HDS technicians were certified to handle nuclear, biological and chemical incidents.

Captain Udell was instrumental in the response to the Anthrax letter attack, which occurred just one month after September 11th, 2001. He led his hazmat trained bomb techs on emergency calls that appeared to never end. Prior to the Anthrax attack, there was typically one or two ``suspicious powder'' calls a month. That was soon to change. On October 15th, the Senator Daschle anthrax letter was opened in the Hart Senate office building. It was the 3rd, of a total of 56 ``suspicious powder'' response calls, for just that day. Captain Udell managed the teams' response, and being a certified bomb and hazmat technician himself, he jumped in and responded to calls with his team. The response and clean up of the anthrax incident encompassed nearly seven months until completion. Captain Udell worked tirelessly throughout the entire period, working long extended hours and rarely taking a day off. To Captain Udell, this was just doing his job; to his team, the Capitol Police, and the Congressional Community Captain Udell is a true leader and patriot in the protection of Congress.

After the Anthrax incident, Captain Udell played a critical part in the development and implementation of the police department's Hazardous Materials Response Team. He finished his career as the Commander of the newly formed Hazardous Incident Response Division of the Capitol Police. The new unit incorporated an ``all hazards'' response capability to deal with the new and emerging threats in the post 9/11 era.

Captain Udell started his relationship with the Congress as high school student in the Page Program. He has served the Capitol Police and the Congress in an exemplary manner throughout his career. He is a role model to those who follow in what it means to ``protect the Congress''--the mission of the U.S. Capitol Police, which Captain Udell has never forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John D. Webster, who is retiring from his post as Chief Financial Officer of the Library of Congress on January 3, 2005.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, I know that I speak not only for myself, but also for all the members of the subcommittee and clerks in thanking John Webster for his service to the Library and to the United States Congress.

John leaves a legacy of dedication, the highest principles of financial management and reporting, a highly professional and devoted staff, and an enviable record of eight consecutive unqualified audit opinions on the Library's financial statements. We on the subcommittee are equally grateful for John's groundbreaking work as co-founder and cochairman of the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council. We have benefited from John's testimony and appearance before this subcommittee on behalf of the Council.

John has served as the Library's chief liaison and representative to this subcommittee since 1996. He has worked hard--and often at inconvenient times including nights and weekends--to ensure that the subcommittee and its clerks had the information and understanding needed to complete appropriations work on the Library's complex budget. Both before and during my tenure, the Library has achieved major budget milestones--support for collections arrearage reduction, collections security, an integrated library management system, storage modules at Ft. Meade, the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center, the National Digital Library, the Digital Talking Book Program for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, the alternate computer facility and National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. John was keenly aware that each of these projects was a high priority for the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Billington, and John ensured that the subcommittee understood these priorities as well as the complex financial underpinnings needed to appropriate funding requisite to their realization.

John Webster has served the Library for 15 years. He was named CFO in 2003, having been honored in 2000 as the recipient of the National President's Award by the Association of Government Accountants. As Chief of the Financial Management Office at the Library, and later CFO, John achieved not only Dr. Billington's goals but his professional commitment to modern, integrated financial systems that serve all customers--internal and external--with trust, confidence, and integrity. He leaves a powerful legacy in the Legislative Branch, one that we collectively applaud and hopefully can emulate. We wish John the best as he retires after a difficult year--losing his beloved wife Gloria and his only brother. His dedication to his work never failed even in light of terrible personal tragedies. His hard work, dedication, and expertise will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bernice Brosious, who is retiring this month from her post as Associate Administrator for Finance for the Chief Administrative Office of the U.S. House. She had a long career of public service and deserves our thanks and admiration.

In 1979 Bernice began her career in government at the General Services Administration. Service at the Defense Investigative Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Aviation Administration followed as she honed her financial skills before bringing her expertise to the House in 1998 as Director of Accounting for the Chief Administrative Officer. In 2001 she became the Associate Administrator for Finance. Over the years, Bernice's outstanding customer service, organizational knowledge, resourcefulness and her leadership on numerous initiatives have benefited countless Members and staff.

Among her many other achievements, Bernice was instrumental in obtaining the House's first clean audit opinion for calendar year 1998 and for maintaining this clean opinion every year since. Over the past seven years Bernice has also been instrumental in moving the House from an ancient paper ledger accounting system to the imminent introduction of a 21st century state-of-the-art financial management system.

On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Bernice for her many years of dedication and outstanding

contributions to the U.S. House of Representatives. We wish Bernice many wonderful years in fulfilling her retirement dreams.

Mr. Speaker, Bernice will be very hard to replace. She has tirelessly served this institution and the American people, and we will miss her dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Polly E. Hodges, who is retiring on January 7, 2005 from her post as Chief Financial Officer of the Congressional Budget Office. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her service to CBO and to the Congress.

Polly was born and raised in Arkansas. She began her postsecondary studies at Hendrix College but obtained her bachelor's degree in accounting and business, cum laude, from San Antonio's Trinity University. Soon afterward, she earned the Certified Public Accountant designation and honed her professional skills at Tenneco, where she rose to the position of senior auditor. After a brief flirtation with the idea of medical school, she became chief accountant to Jacuzzi Brothers, Inc., and then joined CBO's staff on December 21, 1981.

Polly began her career at CBO as Finance and Budget Officer and was later named its Chief Financial Officer. For 23 years, she has overseen the office's budgetary and financial affairs and provided sound financial counsel to each of its six Directors. Polly has played a major role in developing and executing CBO's annual budgets, working closely with its management and with staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Even during a period of tight budgets--not normally a situation relished by budget officers--Polly was proud to assist Appropriations Committee staff in crafting report language that proved useful in leading the legislative branch through potentially painful funding reductions.

Polly's service to the Congress has extended beyond the confines of CBO--she was a founding member of the legislative branch's Financial Management Council and continues to provide that organization with thoughtful counsel.

Throughout her years as a public servant, Polly's command of financial methods and management and her professional and personal integrity have enriched both CBO and the Congress. Thank you, Polly, for your dedication and service, and we wish you well in your retirement.