Dear Friends,

Academic Freedom continues to be an area of great concern to many Colorado citizens. Last year, a bill carried by Representative Shawn Mitchell (now a Senator) addressed this issue. It is common knowledge that professors at our college campuses tend to espouse liberal views. For example, a 2002 study showed that 94% of social science professors at CU were registered Democrats. A number of students testified at hearings of being "brainwashed"
and bullied by liberal professors at several different universities. Many legislators believe that the problem is widespread and serious.

Have you read or heard about the remarks made by CU professor Ward Churchill in his writings or in lectures to
student audiences? Lately they have been widely publicized and criticized. This is one of his quotes: "For that (the
bombing of the World Trade Center) the people who did it owe no apology whatsoever. The action was correct. But
as it stands it was absolutely necessary and absolutely empowering, even if they (the terrorists) got beat, that they
drew blood where it counted." He called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns," comparing them to Adolph
Eichmann, the man who executed Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews during WWII. The House passed a
Resolution HJR05-1011 by a 65 - 0 vote condemning Dr. Ward Churchill's remarks. The Senate passed this
Resolution by a 34 - 1 vote.

The Governor does not believe that this goes far enough. He is calling on CU to fire Dr. Churchill for his
treasonous remarks, which are surely damaging to his students. I agree that Dr. Churchill should be fired, and so
do many other legislators, and citizens of Colorado. For Dr. Churchill, this is not a first amendment issue. He is not
speaking as a private citizen or the employee of a private university or college. He represents CU as a professor.
He is responsible to their code of conduct. About 10% of his salary, which is more than $90,000 annually, is paid
for by the taxpayers. As Governor Owens pointed out, Dr. Churchill is advocating armed violence against
Americans; why should we subsidize him for this?

Size of Government

Last week, before the House State Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, I presented a resolution that would
reduce the number of bills that each legislator carries from 5 to 4. The Resolution failed by a 6 - 5 vote, mostly
along party lines. A big part of the problem is the number of "late bills" that are presented. These are bills that go
past our deadline (1/17 of 2005). I offered an amendment that would require late bills to be signed unanimously by
the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader. This also failed by one vote. In the last ten years, we
have passed over 3,500 bills out of the 6,000 that were introduced. Are we trying to make our state laws like the
IRS tax code?

Reducing the number of bills that we carry by one would have reduced this glut of new laws and made our legislative staff s workload more manageable. I wonder where we will be 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, if we keep passing over 400 (Wouldn't this be 350?) bills per year? Our first President, George Washington said "Government is not reason or eloquence. It's more like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
We should heed Washington's wisdom.

Transportation

HB 1030 that would pave the way for construction of a private toll road on the plains of the Front Range east of I-25
passed by 11 - 0 out of the Transportation Committee. As I stated in last week's Update, if the bill passes the
House and Senate and is signed by the Governor, construction will begin this fall. It would be a $2 billion, 4 lane,
210 mile highway with rail possibly down the middle. It should be completed in 30 months. This is a massive project
and would alleviate some of the car, camper, and truck traffic from I-25. Many of the coal and freight trains would
no longer go through the towns and Denver. This could free up these existing rail lines for a private company to
provide rail passenger traffic at a profit.

The vote was 7 - 4 to require motor-vehicle drivers and front-seat passengers to wear seat belts. This is a
secondary offense now, meaning that a police officer must pull you over first for a different reason than not wearing
a seat belt. If this is passed into law it would become a "primary" offense, you could be pulled over if an officer sees you not wearing a seat belt. I fully agree that people should be using a seat belt while driving or riding,
but I don't believe that it is government's responsibility to arrest us if we don't. I voted NO on this bill. Again, how
much government do we really need? Are we going to have government inspectors look into our refrigerators at
home to be sure that we don't eat spoiled food?

This week a bill passed our committee that bans new drivers from using cell phones while operating a motor
vehicle. I voted no. I'm afraid that it is a matter of time before the "regulators that want to protect us from
ourselves" will introduce legislation that bans all cell phone use. From reports that I have read, accidents caused
by cell phone use is about 6th or 7th on the list of things we shouldn't do while we drive. Should we outlaw eating
food while driving? (I dare someone to take on the fast food restaurants!)

I imagine that you keep track of the Capitol's news in the newspapers and on television. But if you want more
information on any of the issues that I have mentioned, please let me know. Thanks for your support. Please
continue to pray for our country and our soldiers who fight to keep us free. They are responsible for preserving the
day-to-day liberties that we enjoy.

God Bless America!

Rep. Jim Welker
House District 51
Loveland, CO