Tom Osborne

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. She has done an excellent job of describing some of the benefits of the ethanol industry. I wish to join her and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and others in introducing the Fuels Security Act, which will be introduced in the House next week. Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the United States produced 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol. A couple, 3 years ago, that would have been an unheard of amount. At that time we were producing less than 2 billion gallons of ethanol per year. Yet this year, 1 year later, in 2005, that 3.6 billion will go to 4.5 billion gallons. So the ethanol industry is really ramping up. There are a lot of new ethanol plants out there and a tremendous amount of product that is being produced. Roughly one- third of the fuels in the United States today are blended with ethanol. So we have gone from maybe 5 or 10 percent, roughly 30 percent, a tremendous increase. There are currently 20 States that are now producing ethanol. At one time, it was assumed that ethanol was the product of only two or three or four corn-producing States. Now we see ethanol plants in places like California, Kentucky, and other States around the country. Eventually, I would hazard a guess that probably all 50 States at some point will produce ethanol. The thing that we need to realize is that ethanol can be produced from almost any type of biomass. It does not have to be corn; it does not have to be sorghum. It can be switch grass, in some cases it can be garbage, it can be a lot of things that we are trying to get rid of. So we think that the industry is something that can definitely be a tremendous benefit to the Nation as time goes on. As the gentlewoman from South Dakota mentioned, the ethanol industry significantly reduces the price of gasoline. I think almost every American today is feeling the impact of high fuel prices. So based on $2 a gallon, and almost all of us realize that it is more like $2.22, but if it is based on $2 per gallon, if you took the ethanol industry out of the picture, gasoline would go up 29 cents. So a $2 gallon of gas would be $2.29. So if you are paying $2.20 in your home community, that means that if ethanol went away, you would be paying roughly $2.51, $2.52 a gallon; something like that. So ethanol produces a benefit for everyone; whether you burn ethanol in your tank or not, it is important to the economy. As was mentioned earlier, refiners would have to import an additional 217,000 barrels of high-grade fuel per day if ethanol disappeared. That would be very, very expensive. As my colleagues know, just normal petroleum is $56, $57 a barrel, and high-grade would be even higher than that. Currently, imports of petroleum are a major drag on our economy. Probably the number one thing holding our economy back is the amount of money that we are spending on petroleum from other nations. We are importing roughly 55 percent of our petroleum, and so ethanol moves us away from that. It is not the whole answer, but it certainly is a very significant part of improving the economy. Currently, ethanol uses roughly 11 or 12 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Last year, we had a record crop of 12 billion bushels. Now, if we had not had ethanol using up about 11 or 12 percent, we would have had a tremendous hit in our prices. As it was, corn went from $2.60, to $2.70 a bushel down to about $1.85, $1.90 at the low. But if it was not for ethanol, we would have seen that down around $1.50, $1.40, because ethanol adds about 25 cents to 50 cents per bushel for the farmer, and we think this is tremendously important to the farm economy. As we will see here in a minute, this has an impact on the farm payments that are laid out by the average taxpayer. So as the corn price goes down, farm payments go up. And when farm payments go up, the taxpayer is hit harder. So again, ethanol certainly is good for the taxpayer. As has been mentioned previously by the gentlewoman from South Dakota, the environment certainly benefits from the ethanol industry. I believe that she did mention that tailpipe emissions are decreased by roughly 50 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions, which are very harmful to the ozone and the environment, are reduced by roughly 30 percent; and it is estimated that greenhouse gases are reduced by something like 7 million tons, so 7 million tons come out of the atmosphere because of ethanol; and we think that is a tremendous benefit. As was mentioned earlier, at one point, we had a 2 percent oxygenate requirement for our fuel. So the oxygenate requirement was met by two different fuels. MTBE provided a little bit more than 1 percent of that 2 percent, and ethanol provided about eight-tenths of 1 percent. MTBE has been proven to pollute ground water, so roughly 20 States have now outlawed MTBE; and as a result, something has to fill that void and that is where ethanol has come in to play. At the outset, many people said ethanol will never be able to produce enough gallons to fill that void, but there has been a ripple. We have found that ethanol has been transported to California, to New York, other places where it was assumed that it could never be adequate to fill the demand, and we have seen that supply filled very adequately. As was mentioned, the legislation we are proposing removes the 2 percent oxygenate requirement, which has been very burdensome in some areas, and we think that that flexibility will be very helpful to them. The economy, of course, benefits. We would assume that something like 150,000 new jobs will be added each year because of the ethanol industry; and over the course of this bill, between 2005 and 2012, roughly 243,000 new jobs would be created. It will add roughly $200 billion to the gross domestic product between 2004 and 2012, and the biggest thing that I see right now as far as trade is the thing that is causing a huge trade deficit is basically our imports of petroleum products. So the ethanol industry reduces that trade deficit by about $5 billion a year and between 2004 and 2012, it will cut that trade deficit about $64 billion. So that is a huge impact on our economy. So we are doing better with ethanol. But we can do better yet, because Brazil currently mandates 25 percent of their petroleum come from ethanol. Of course, Brazil also is a major exporter to other countries of ethanol. As was mentioned earlier, we currently, I think in Nebraska, which I represent a big part of that State, we have 5 E-85 stations which are stations that pump 85 percent ethanol. And those gallons are roughly 40 to 50 percent, or 40 to 50 cents cheaper per gallon than standard gasoline. As time goes on, we are going to see more and more of this occurring. The other thing that I might mention is that the ethanol industry has a by-product. Besides ethanol, you are producing usually feed for animals from the by-product, but the thing that many people do not realize is the spinoffs from the ethanol industry are going to be huge. Some of the by-products that we are going to have, Creatine, which is a muscle-building substance which is safe, can be used, can be made from some of the residue. Biodegradable plastic in the wet milling plants are being created. So I think as time goes on, biotechnology is going to be important, and we will see a huge benefit from the overall ethanol industry. I might also mention that biodiesel is going to be a major part of the legislation that we are introducing. And, of course, that usually uses soybeans in production. But biodiesel is going to make diesel fuel cheaper, more efficient, and will cause much less wear and tear on diesel engines. So we think these things are all very important. I am going to now turn to just a couple of visuals. As was mentioned earlier, one thing that so often people do not understand about ethanol is the assumption that it takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol. But what we see here is that for every unit of energy that goes into the manufacture of ethanol, you get 1.4 units of energy out. And so what that means is that in order to run a tractor to plant the crop, to run a combine to harvest the crop, to run the refinery to make the ethanol, if you are going to pump some water out of the ground to irrigate, these are all of those energy costs which are usually petroleum fuels, which we would have to do with gasoline, or diesel or propane or whatever. So you get a net gain of four-tenths of a Btu. And in contrast, if you look at a gallon of gasoline, for every unit of energy that you use, you use 1 Btu, you get eight-tenths of a Btu back after you have processed and refined the gasoline. So you lose energy. It is a net loss instead of a net gain. If it is MTBE that you are after, you get actually only .67 Btus back from 1 Btu of energy. So the reason for that, again, as was mentioned earlier, is that here we are harnessing the sun, it is renewable fuel, and so that gain that you get is from solar energy that is converted into fuel. And we think that is an interesting thing, it is an economy, and it certainly benefits the environment as well. Just a few other facts and I will point out here before I yield back. The ethanol energy will add roughly $51 billion to farm income over 10 years. And Mr. King and Ms. Herseth and I all come from ag States, and the farm economy is struggling in most cases. Some people are doing pretty well, but a lot of people are marginal. In the State of Nebraska at one time we had 135 million farmers. Today we have roughly 48 million. And so all of those people have gone out of business because it is simply not very profitable. So when you find a value-added product that will add $51 billion to farm economy, this is something that we think is very, very important. We mentioned that it will reduce government farm payments. Many people in urban areas do not like to see some parts of the farm bill. They do not like to see the price supports. Well, what has happened here is because the ethanol industry raises the cost of corn, the price of corn, by 25 to 50 cents a bushel, that means that as those prices get higher, there is less farm payments, because you do not have to make up the loan deficiency payments. So as a result there is the benefit of about $5.9 billion in less tax dollars in the farm bill over the course of 10 years. We mentioned that it reduces the trade deficit by roughly $34 billion, and that is over a period of time, and significantly reduces air pollution. As we mentioned, 7 million tons of greenhouse gases would be reduced each year. So some of this is a little redundant, but it does not hurt to repeat it. I am sure that Mr. King will say a few of these things over. But we feel that we have a good piece of legislation here. And I would like to thank the gentlelady for being part of this, for hosting this this evening, and for her part in introducing the legislation. Mr. King also has been certainly a very strong proponent of renewable fuels. And so we hope to work together, and we hope to convince enough of our colleagues, many of whom are from urban areas, and many of whom have been imbued with the idea that ethanol is sort of a giveaway to the rural States, that this really is a win-win, this is something that is good for all of us, and it is certainly good for the country.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I do know Paul Wolfowitz and I guess I do not recognize the Paul Wolfowitz I know in comparison with the recent remarks. I hope people will evaluate him on what he has accomplished, which I think is rather substantial. Madam Speaker, this weekend the NCAA basketball tournament begins. The tournament advertising provides millions of dollars to fund the NCAA. It is the primary source of funds for the NCAA. In 2003, alcohol producers spent $52 million on 4,747 beer commercials on college sports. Nearly one-half of the $52 million spent on alcohol advertising in 2003 was spent on the basketball tournament. Alcohol is the primary product marketed on NCAA sports broadcasts today. I think this is a bad idea. Why? Number one, this advertising violates the NCAA's own bylaws. The NCAA bylaws, according to their handbook, are as follows: ``Advertising policy of the association are designed to exclude those advertisements that do not appear to be in the best interest of higher education.'' The leading cause of death on college campuses is alcohol related; 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-related injuries. We have lost 1,500 in Iraq in 2 years, and we agonize over those deaths. We have 1,400 annually that die on college campuses. More than 70,000 students are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault, 500,000 students are injured under the influence of alcohol each year, and two of five college students currently are binge drinkers and sometimes are problem drinkers. It does not seem to me that it is very logical that we would have the major social problem on college campuses be alcohol, and on the other hand turn around and use our athletic teams to promote alcohol advertising. It seems inconsistent, and it does seem to be in my mind at least to violate the bylaws of the NCAA. Furthermore, the average young person today starts consuming alcohol at age 13, not 23, not 21. Age 13. So this has some tremendous implications I would like to discuss a little bit further because even though we are concerned about alcohol consumption on college campuses, and this is very damaging, I am even more concerned about alcohol consumption of teenagers because kids identify with athletes. Kids like sports. They see athletes on the television screen and in the stadium, and they want to be like the athletes, and there is a subtle connection between what they see on the courts and on the field and what they see on the commercials, which usually are young people, attractive people having a good time involved in alcohol-related activities. Therefore, there is a definite lure and a movement to move those kids toward consumption of alcohol. The younger children are when they start to drink, the more alcoholism results. In other words, a young person who starts using alcohol at age 15 or earlier is 400 percent more likely to become alcohol-dependent than someone who starts consuming alcohol when they are the legal drinking age of 21. This causes tremendous devastation of these young people. Also the younger you are when you start consuming alcohol, the more cognitive dysfunction occurs. Hence the second graph I would like to point out here. These are images of a teen, of teen brain activity performing memory tests. This is a 15-year-old male nondrinker. The brain is firing pretty well. This is a 15-year-old male heavy drinker. This is a young person not under the influence of alcohol, but someone who uses alcohol regularly and is a heavy drinker. You can see the differences in cognitive function. You can see the differences, the problem-solving ability that would be changed in these cases. So our young people are having a difficult time because of alcohol. At the present time it is estimated that there are 3 million teenagers who are full-blown alcoholics. And those addicted to other kinds of drugs would number probably in the hundreds of thousands. It is a huge problem, much more weighted toward alcohol consumption. Also alcohol kills six times more young people than all illicit drugs combined. So methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, we can lump them all together, and alcohol kills six times more young people than all of those drugs combined. Also, under-age drinking costs the United States $53 billion annually, a huge cost. So I think that we should really rethink this policy of the NCAA. There is no question that under-age drinking is still going to occur even if that advertising policy were to change. Madam Speaker, I would say in conclusion that alcohol advertising on NCAA sports, number one, appears to violate the NCAA's own bylaws. And, secondly, such advertising promotes alcohol consumption on the college campus and also on the junior high school and on the high school campus. This is certainly very negative as far as our country is concerned. I hope my colleagues will join me in simply urging through a resolution that the NCAA cease and desist this practice of alcohol advertising on amateur sports, particularly NCAA sports, because it does appear to be in violation of their own bylaws.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. This bill is an investment in our economy. For every $1 billion invested in transportation, 47,000 jobs are created. I appreciate the work of the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and others. One aspect of the bill I would like to call particular attention to, that I think is so important, has to do primarily with rural America. In rural America, TEA-LU provides $590 million for a new high-risk rural road safety improvement program that targets funding for safety improvements on rural two-lane roads. And the reason this is so important is because reports indicate that nearly one-third of all fatal crashes each year are due to substandard road conditions and roadside hazards. Nearly 61 percent of all highway fatalities occur on rural roads. So this $590 million apportionment for rural road safety is critical, and I think it should save hundreds of lives each year. Additionally, during later consideration of this bill, I will be offering an amendment that will enable the State of Nebraska to revisit, through the State legislative process, its length law for custom harvesters harvesting wheat, milo and soybeans. I hope this amendment will be added to the bill. So I feel this is a good bill. I am a new member of the committee, and I really appreciate the work that has gone into it, the bipartisan effort. TEA-LU's passage is critical to our Nation's economy, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1991, the ISTEA Act froze truckload and length limits at existing levels at the State level. Nebraska's length limit at that time was 65 feet. Unfortunately, or fortunately, in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, all surrounding States, the length limit was 80 feet-plus. Over the last 14 years, custom harvest equipment has grown larger, and so the average length of the custom harvest load is about 80 feet. The custom harvest starts usually in Oklahoma, goes through Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, the Dakotas, on up into Canada; and so the problem is that these loads start out at a length of 80 feet. When they hit the Nebraska border, the trailer is dropped off, and at that point we bring the combine into Nebraska. Then the truck has to go back and pick up the trailer, the header, go back to the site, and that hopscotch maneuver continues all across the State. If they have 10 different polices where they are going to harvest, they have to make 10 different dual hauls, and this happens all the way up to South Dakota. The average custom harvester is traveling an extra 3, 4, sometimes 500 miles doubling up, trying to get his equipment across the State of Nebraska. What we are asking here is an amendment that requests that the State of Nebraska be given authority to change the State statute lengthening loads from 65 to 81.5 feet. We think this is reasonable. This is only for custom harvesters, harvesting only wheat, milo or soybeans, and this applies only during harvest season. It would be roughly the month of July and the month of October. This would save fuel. It will lessen traffic, reduce harvest expense, reduce driving time, labor, and also would be a safety factor. This particular amendment is supported by the U.S. Custom Harvesters, National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the National Association of Wheat Growers. It affects not just the State of Nebraska but a whole corridor from Oklahoma on up into Canada and affects the whole industry. We hope very much that this would be looked upon favorably. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments. What this amendment would do would be to give the State of Nebraska an opportunity to extend its length limits. It does not mandate it. It simply gives them the opportunity. It is also important to point out that this is as tight as we can make it. The gentleman mentioned that the length of time would be much of the year. It would actually be the month of July, which is when most all wheat harvest occurs, and also the month of October, which would be for sorghum or milo and also some soybeans. As far as safety is concerned, if it is unsafe in Nebraska, we have got all of the surrounding States, roughly 10 States, that have the length limit of 80 feet. So what is happening now is we are having to decouple the trailer, leave half of it at the Kansas border and then we double up. So we are causing twice the traffic across the State of Nebraska. We have to go back, get the header, take it to the field. Then we leave the header there, go to the next place, drop the combine off, go back and get the header. So what we think we are doing here is we are using way more fuel, causing more traffic. It is more of a safety problem, and we think that this really affects the whole industry. As far as crashes are concerned, there were 4,699 large-truck crashes in 2003, and only 294 of those crashes involved the larger rigs. So we do not think this is a significant factor. We think it would be safer, and we know it would be cheaper. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to particularly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), subcommittee chairman, for this bill. From my perspective this is a good bill. And I think there are several points I would like to make. First of all, it consolidates programs and creates efficiencies. It gives State and local officials more flexibility, which is always important. And the $3,000 reemployment accounts to purchase needed services to ensure reemployment seem to me to be a good idea because ofttimes when a person is trying to get back on their feet, they need to have money to pay for child care. They need transportation. It allows them to get reestablished, and we think this is certainly very helpful. And then it also allows faith-based organizations to offer job training service. We think this is important. I would like to amplify on that just a little bit. Number one, faith- based organizations often provide services more efficiently than State or Federal agencies. The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation are all extremely efficient and they are very cost effective. Secondly, faith-based organizations often go where others will not go or do not go. In inner cities, and sometimes our rural areas, we find that they are very effective. Faith-based organizations are by law allowed to hire employees to provide services which conform to the mission of the faith-based organization. This right was affirmed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1987 Supreme Court decision, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop versus Amos. So we think there is ample legal justification for this. Number four, faith-based organization employees must often wear many hats. For instance, a music director at a church may also work at the job training center in the afternoon. A Sunday school superintendent may also run a Head Start program at the faith-based organization. So it is unreasonable and contrary to establish law to force faith-based organizations to hire employees who do not share the faith-based organization's mission. We think this makes perfect sense. This is a good bill and I urge support for it.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, recently other members of the House Committee on Agriculture and I met with the Commissioner of Agriculture of the European Union. She was not very complimentary of our current farm bill. She knows it keeps our farm economy very competitive with the European Union. Unfortunately, this commissioner's sentiments mirror the sentiments of many Americans. Many believe that the farm bill is too expensive, and I believe as we write a new budget the farm bill will certainly be on the chopping block. But I think it is important that we think about and remember a few things as we go into this process. First of all, in looking at the chart here, we can see that the current farm bill, which went into effect in 2002, actually was budgeted to cost $14 billion that year and it cost $13 billion. In 2003 it was budgeted to cost about 18.6 and it cost 12.1. In 2004, which we have just completed, the projected budgetary cost was $17.5 billion, and it actually cost $10.1 billion. So the net effect is that what was supposed to cost roughly $50 billion has cost us $35 billion. So the farm program is one of the few Federal programs that is way under budget and has certainly given the taxpayer a tremendous return on investment. The other thing that we might want to remember is that during this period of time, we have had a tremendous drought in the western part of the United States. The drought map has looked something like this for about the last 5 years. So interestingly enough, the emergency payments for the drought have been included in these farm bill expenditures. In the past, in the previous farm bill, when we had a drought or we had emergency spending, it was always over and above. But in these cases, part of this 13.2 and part of that 10.1 was emergency spending for drought. So, again, this has been a very efficient and a very lean process, and we think that the farm bill has served a great purpose in that sense. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out is that we really do not subsidize our farmers anywhere near what some other nations do. For instance, the average farm subsidy per acre in the United States, according to this farm program, is $38 per acre. The European Union's is $295 per acre. So the ratio is about $7 European Union for $1 in the United States. Japan subsidizes their agriculture $3,655 per acre, a ratio of roughly 100 to one. So why in the world would Japan and Europe subsidize agriculture to that degree? I think part of the reason is that 60 years ago during World War II, they realized how important a food supply was. Their food supply was decimated, and when their populace has been hungry, they begin to realize that that is something they are going to protect no matter what. So in summary, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention four things regarding the farm bill. First of all, farmers plan their operation based on the farm bill. They are operating loans. Their land payments they have is based on the farm program, and if we start tinkering with it, if we start changing the farm bill in mid-course, we really do not do them justice. We will write a new farm bill in 2007. If we want to make changes, that is certainly the time that we should do that. But we should not do it now when they have one set of assumptions and then have that changed. Secondly, we currently spend only 9 percent of our income in the United States on food. This is by far the lowest amount of money that people spend, at least proportionate money, that any civilized nation or any developed nation in the country, or in the world, spends at the present time, only 9 percent. And, thirdly, if we fail to protect our food supply, we may see that what happens to the food supply would be the same as what happened to our petroleum situation. We found suddenly one day that we could purchase oil from OPEC at $10, $11 a barrel. We began to quit exploring in this country, and we began to purchase oil from OPEC. Now we are really 60 percent dependent on overseas sources, and about every 2 or 3 weeks we have to wait to see what OPEC is going to do to see what is going to happen to our fuel prices at the pump. We do not want this to happen, certainly, to our food supply. So the current farm bill is less expensive than Freedom to Farm. It is working well, and I think we should think long and hard before we make any mid-course changes.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I spent a good part of my life in coaching, dealing with young people, and not long ago, I had a call from a young man whom I had not heard from for about 7 or 8 years. This young man was abandoned by his father in infancy and then by his mother when he was 12, and he spent basically 2 years on his own on the streets, and he spent some time in a group home and, needless to say, had a very difficult life. Maybe things are getting a little better now, but unfortunately, this story is not unusual. It happens more and more frequently. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 10 million teens, which is one-fourth of our teenagers, are at serious risk of not achieving a productive adulthood. There are 22 million fatherless children in our country. Fifty percent of our children currently grow up without both biological parents. We are the most violent Nation in the world for Nations that are not at war for young people in regard to homicide and suicide. We have 3 million teenagers addicted to alcohol and hundreds of thousands addicted to other kinds of drugs. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this level of dysfunction among our young people is a greater threat to the long-term well-being of our Nation than terrorism. That is an extreme statement, but I really believe it is true. The Federal Government has responded to this problem by creating more than 150 youth-serving programs spread over 12 agencies. Most of these programs are in Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Department of Justice. The problem is that many of these programs are duplicative. Most have not been evaluated for effectiveness. Many of them do not serve the function for which they were designed. Many have no clear mission or goals. There is often little communication between agencies and programs, and there is unnecessary complexity in obtaining youth services. For instance, someone in foster care may have to deal with four or five different agencies, and for a young person in foster care that is almost impossible to negotiate. The General Accounting Office calls Federal response to youth programs a perfect example of ``mission fragmentation,'' and it recommends coordination, consolidation and streamlining of youth- serving programs. The White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth did a study and they arrived at a similar conclusion, that we had a tremendous amount of dysfunction and disorganization in our youth-serving programs. Therefore, at the request of numerous youth-serving agencies, we have drafted the Federal Youth Coordination Act which will be introduced tomorrow. This bill creates a council composed of members of all 12 youth-serving agencies. This council will have to meet at least four times a year. The Council will be charged with basically five different tasks. Number 1, they will be asked to evaluate youth-serving programs to make sure they are accomplishing what they were designed to do. Number 2, they are charged with coordinating and consolidating across agencies. In many cases, the way the language of the bill is written, they cannot even talk to each other if they are in different agencies. Number 3, provide an annual report on progress on coordination, streamlining and consolidation. Number 4, set quantifiable goals for Federal youth programs and develop a plan to reach those goals. In other words, they have to, in some way, quantify and measure what it is they are trying to do and how far they have gone in achieving those goals. Number 5, hold Federal agencies accountable for achieving results. I would ask my colleagues to please support the Federal Youth Coordination Act. This bill will help the Federal Government deliver more services more effectively to a greater number of children. It will be more cost-effective, and I hope that it will receive broad bipartisan support.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 46) supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 46.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the recent elections that we had here in the United States indicate that many people were concerned about ``values'' in this kind of a loose term, and it seems like much of this concern is directed at a perceived erosion of our culture. A good amount of the data that we have uncovered would indicate that this concern certainly has merit. For example, nearly one half of our young people are growing up without both biological parents today. So roughly one-half of our young people have experienced some significant trauma in their lives because losing a biological parent is difficult for anyone. More than 20 million children are fatherless in our country, and usually when they have no father, whether they are a young man or woman, they try to fill this void with activities which ofttimes are harmful, maybe gangs, drugs, promiscuity, whatever. A significant number of our children are involved in alcohol and drug abuse. Roughly 3 million young people in their teenage years currently are addicted to alcohol. That is 3 million. And hundreds of thousands, of course, are addicted to other substance abuse. Promiscuity, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases have become a major problem. The out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 33 percent today. I observed a great deal of this growing dysfunction during my 36 years as a coach where I worked with young people, and I guess it is my premise that this unraveling of the culture may pose a greater long-term threat to our Nation than terrorism. That sounds like an overblown statement, but I believe it to be true because if we think about some of the great nations of the world throughout history, whether it be Rome, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, many of those great empires simply disappeared without a shot being fired. So what can we do? We certainly cannot legislate strong families, but we can promote mentoring. Mentoring works. Research shows many of the following to be true: Number one, mentoring improves academic performance. Children in good mentoring relationships have better attendance in school. The mentoring program that I am involved with personally has shown an 80 percent decrease in absenteeism from school, better graduation rates, fewer disciplinary referrals. Again, the mentoring program that I am involved with has shown a 70 percent reduction in referrals for discipline. Better grades, 40 percent better grades. Secondly, mentoring reduces high-risk behavior, reduces smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, in some cases by as much as 50 percent. Promiscuous behavior is reduced, and violent and criminal behavior also begin to be diminished. Mentoring enhances a number of social factors. It improves self- esteem. Relationships with peers and parents improve. Personal hygiene also is improved. So a mentor is, I guess, three things to me: Number one, a mentor is someone who cares. I talked to a mentor not long ago who showed up in school and was going to mentor this young guy, and he came to class and there was one student sitting there, his mentee, and the teacher. And he asked the young guy what was going on, and he said there was a field trip that day and they were going to a bowling alley and this young guy stayed because he knew his mentor was coming, and that mentor was probably the only adult in his life who really connected with him and cared about him. So a mentor is someone who cares. Secondly, a mentor is someone who affirms. And I noticed that it was so important in coaching if one told a player that they believed in him, if they affirmed his behavior, they said they thought he had a future, ofttimes he would grow into that which he did not even know himself that he could become. So affirmation is something that nobody can live without for any length of time. And then, thirdly, mentoring provides a vision. So many young people have never seen an adult in their family who gets up and goes to work every day, or maybe someone in their family who keeps their word and has a good work ethic. So a role model, a vision, is important. Roughly 17 million children in the United States at the present time either need or want a mentor. We have roughly 2.5 million mentors that are provided. So we are about 15 million short. So we spend billions of dollars on prisons and drugs and alcohol abuse. Roughly $50 billion a year is spent on underage drinking and its dysfunction. We spend money on foster care and crime, but little on prevention. Usually about 2 to 3 percent of the State and Federal budget is spent on prevention such as mentoring. Mentoring works. There is a great mentoring program here in the House called Horton's Kids. Four members of my staff are mentors, and we appreciate that very much. So I urge support of H. Res. 46, which recognizes and encourages mentoring. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a strong supporter of mentoring.

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

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and also the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for their kind words and their support of this resolution.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2005'' to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program. Unfortunately, last Congress the House and Senate were unable to complete work on reauthorizing CSBG. The bill I am introducing today once again puts forth our effort and ongoing commitment to ensuring that anti-poverty activities for needy families continue. The CSBG is an anti-poverty block grant that funds a State- administered network of over 1,100 public and private community action agencies delivering social services to low-income Americans. The CSBG Act was established in 1981 in response to President Reagan's proposal to consolidate the Community Services Administration and 11 other anti- poverty programs. Block grant funds may be used for a wide-range of anti-poverty activities to help families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency. Such activities may include providing assistance in finding and retaining employment, obtaining adequate housing, and providing emergency food services. The CSBG also includes funding for certain discretionary activities, including community economic development, rural community facilities improvement, the community food and nutrition assistance, and the national youth sports program. The CSBG program is an essential tool in meeting the unique needs of each area and serves as a conduit for community services. The bill I am introducing today would build upon improvements made to the program during the last reauthorization. It would promote increased quality by requiring States to reevaluate whether the lowest performing grantees should continue to receive funding. It retains the current definition of an eligible entity to include the grandfather provisions, but updates the definition to require eligible entities to successfully develop and meet locally determined goals and meet the State goals, standards and performance requirements in order to continue receiving funds. This bill promotes increased accountability by ensuring that States monitor local grantees to ensure services are provided in the most efficient manner and that services reach those with the greatest need. The bill also requires the development of local grantee determined goals that each local grantee is responsible for meeting. The bill further encourages initiatives to improve economic conditions and mobilization of new resources in rural areas to help eliminate obstacles to the self-sufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities, and expands opportunities for providing youth mentoring services to encourage education, and youth crime prevention. Finally, the bill continues the CSBG grants and discretionary programs at current authorization levels and extends them through fiscal year 2010. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that ensures improved services for low-income individuals and families.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, between 1962 and 1998 I was involved with young people as a member of the coaching profession; and during that period of time, that 36-year stretch, I saw some alarming trends. The out-of-wedlock birth rate went from 5 percent to 33 percent; an increase in children living without both biological parents has increased to nearly 50 percent; the United States has become the most violent Nation for young people in the civilized world; it has the highest homicide and the highest suicide rate. Back in 1960, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine were practically unheard of and today, of course, we have a major epidemic. So as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat that we have to our Nation is what is happening to our young people. I would like to suggest that the best available solution that I have been able to observe is mentoring. A mentor is, number one, someone who cares. Many children simply have no one in their lives, no adult who shows unconditional love and acceptance of them, and a mentor is somebody who does that. Mentoring also provides affirmation. No one, whether you are 5 years old, 10 years old, or 60 years old, can function very well if there is not someone who occasionally says, we care about you, we approve of what you are doing, way to go. So a mentor is one who provides affirmation in a world where many young people get very little of it. Then, thirdly, a mentor is one who provides a vision of what is possible. So many of our young children realize that when they get to be 16, they can leave school; and it is assumed that they will do that because they have never seen anyone in their family finish high school or go to college or contemplate a career. So a mentor provides vision. Mentoring works. A mentoring program that I have been involved with in my home State of Nebraska has done some follow-up study with the Gallup organization. We found that a mentoring program, at least in this case, increased attendance by those being mentored by 80 percent, reduced disciplinary referrals by 60 percent, and increased academic performance by 40 percent. Other studies have shown that a reduction in drug and alcohol abuse has been about 50 percent, teenage pregnancy has gone down, violent crime has been reduced, graduation rates have been improved, peer relationships have been improved, including relationships with parents. Mentoring is cost-effective. It usually costs about $300 to $500 per mentor-mentee match, whereas it costs $30,000 to $40,000 a year to incarcerate somebody. A young person on drugs may cost more than $30,000 to $40,000 a year. The National Mentoring Partnership estimates that roughly 17.5 million young people badly need a mentor; and yet at the present time, we have only about 2.5 million children in mentoring relationships. So we have a gap of roughly 15 million young people. The Congress and the President have recognized the need by providing $50 million for Mentoring For Success grants, and another $50 million for mentoring children of prisoners, and this was provided last year. However, much more could be done. I urge Members of Congress to recognize and encourage mentoring during this National Mentoring Month of January. Members of the Mentoring Caucus are introducing a resolution honoring mentors. This will be done tomorrow, and we hope that we will have a broad base of support throughout the Congress.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have a chance to speak in support of H.R. 1350. I am pleased that this bill has evolved into what appears to be a very bipartisan bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, and Members on the other side for all of their work. There are three or four points that I would like to make that I think are particularly noteworthy regarding this bill. First of all, it provides clear academic achievement goals for children with disabilities. In the past, once a child was identified as having a learning disability, oftentimes they were assigned to mediocrity, and there was no attempt to improve that child's learning situation. Secondly, and maybe most importantly, it provides early intervention strategies to prevent children from being identified or misidentified as children with disabilities. If we get to children early enough with remedial help, many times children who would be labeled as disabled are simply not labeled as such and are able to be mainstreamed. Fifteen percent of the funds for IDEA are being used for this early intervention strategy, and I think that is critical. Also, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) pointed out earlier, and I think this also is a very important point, the current legislation reduces paperwork related to IDEA which is particularly burdensome to teachers. Also, this legislation clarifies what the term ``highly qualified teacher'' means. So often in Federal legislation we throw out a term and we do not specify what it is, and here we have a clear identification of what the term means. Then, of course, lastly, I would mention the issue that comes up all the time when we talk to educators. That is, simply a lack of funding. People have locked onto the idea that 40 percent of the funding for IDEA was supposed to be Federal. It was authorized, and, of course, we have fallen far short of that. In 1995, IDEA was funded 6 percent federally. Today, it is 20 percent. So that is a remarkable increase, and we are on a 6-year path to meet the 40 percent funding. So I urge support. It is a good bill, and I would like to thank those involved with authoring the bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Creighton J. Hale who made many important contributions to sports safety in baseball and softball, as well as improving the safety of law enforcement and military personnel. Dr. Hale was born in 1924 in Hardy, Nebraska. He grew up in Nebraska and graduated from Hardy Public Schools in 1942. He then continued on to attend the University of Nebraska at Lincoln for one year, and then Doane College in the V-12 officers training program for the United States Navy. Following active duty during World War II, he earned his bachelor's degree from Colgate University at Hamilton, New York in 1948, his master's from Springfield College in 1949, and his doctorate from New York University in 1951. Dr. Creighton J. Hale, as an exercise physiologist, first conducted a scientific study of professional baseball players while an associate professor at Springfield College from 1951-1955. Dr. Hale developed an electronic testing device to measure the reaction times of major league baseball players. Along with this research, Dr. Hale found that children had less time to react to a pitch than major league players. With the conclusion of his findings, the Little League pitching mound was moved back from 44 feet to 46 feet, thus resulting in fewer batters being injured. One of the next inventions that Dr. Hale worked on was the double- earflap batter's helmet, now made of a variety of lightweight plastics. The original helmet was made of fiberglass and could not withstand the impact of a pitched ball. In addition, the design did not protect the temple area. Little League made use of the new helmets mandatory in 1961. Dr. Hale was also an integral part of developing the aluminum bat and the one-piece catcher's mask attached to a helmet. Outside of sports, Dr. Hale assisted in the development of the infantry pack in 1954 for use by the United States Army. In 1976, he became chairman of a group of scientist with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. During this time, his research aided the development of a lightweight bullet-resistant vest used by the military and law enforcement personnel. In addition, Dr. Hale co-designed a one-piece helmet made of Kevlar that offered more protection than the Army's previous steel helmet. All United States military personnel now use this type of helmet. Dr. Hale also made invaluable contributions as president for Little League Baseball from 1973-1994. As well as serving as president, he served as Chief Executive Officer of the Board from 1983-1996. Under his leadership, the number of leagues enrolled increased from 10,006 to 21,711 and the number of participants increased from 370,000 to 3,123,205. At the turn of the 21st century, Little League Baseball and Softball had become the world's largest youth sports program, serving boys and girls ages 5 to 18. Dr. Creighton J. Hale has made many valuable contributions to Little League Baseball and Softball in the way of innovations and moral support. He understood the mission set by founder Carl E. Stotz that Little League was about the development of good citizens rather than good athletes through ``coaches teaching kids respect and discipline and sportsmanship and the desire to excel.'' I commend Dr. Hale for all that he has done to improve the lives of young people, servicemen and women, and law enforcement personnel.