Tom Osborne

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I know Mr. Bereuter will particularly appreciate the gentleman's comments. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who has shown great patience, endurance, who has even delayed a medical procedure to help us tonight. So we are honored to have him with us.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate his comments. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and appreciate his patience in being here this evening. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate him being here this evening. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who has worked very closely with Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his kind kinds. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate his kindness in coming down here and waiting. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Mr. Bereuter, and then I will yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for the remaining 30 minutes or 25 minutes, whatever we have left, to manage the last part of the hour. I would just like to comment on the fact that Doug Bereuter has served an extraordinarily long period of time here in the House of Representatives, actually longer than any other Nebraskan has served in the House. As a matter of fact, it is rumored that he served under Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, that is, and so his 26-odd years of service have been greatly appreciated. Doug represents a very diverse constituency, and he has represented that constituency very well. This was exemplified by the fact that when we redistricted in 2000, three of the counties in Doug's district were going to be allocated to my district, and there was almost a complete revolt from those three counties. They did not want to leave Doug and come with me, and so I think one of them managed to stay in Doug's district. Doug is a small-town guy, Utica, Nebraska. He is proud of the fact that he has held over 1,000 town hall meetings. So he has really maintained close touch with his constituency. Doug carried an extremely heavy work load here in Congress. He served on the Committee on Financial Services, Committee on International Relations, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was vice chairman of the full committee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Policy and National Security, vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. So very, very few, if any, people in Congress served in that large number of committees. Also he is the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He has been prominent in world trade issues and world hunger programs. Doug attended the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where he was a Phi Beta Kappa. He went to Harvard graduate school and was a faculty member and guest lecturer at Harvard, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Kansas State University, also in private business, United States Army, Nebraska State legislature. So there are very few people in Congress who have had the varied experience and the excellent background that Doug Bereuter has had. His past committee memberships, honorary positions are really too numerous to mention; but the most important thing about Doug, and this is what I would like to emphasize, it is really not so much what he has done as how he has done them. Doug has been exceptionally self- sacrificing, not noisy, abrasive, and certainly not self-serving; and this has been appreciated by all of his colleagues. And I think this is an example of why so many people have shown up tonight to speak on his behalf. His focus has been on serving the best interest of the country and his district and not on self-promotion. He has worked very well with Members of both parties, and I think that probably the finest compliment that was paid to Doug was paid by Earl Blumenauer, a Member of the other party, who was not, unfortunately, able to be here because of an emergency, but Earl said that Doug was one of those people who were the glue that held this place together. And I guess when you leave Congress, if somebody can say that about you from the other side of the aisle, that is an extreme compliment. So Doug certainly is somebody who has been a healer, somebody who has pulled people together; and I guess the last thing I would mention to you that, again, displays Doug's character is the fact that I arrived here as a 64-year-old freshman who knew a little bit about football and almost nothing about politics. And Doug and his wife, Louise, had Nancy, my wife, and myself out to dinner. And he tried to give us the basics, kind of Congress 101. And so he tried to steer me in the right direction and was always available, and I guess it is always the mark of a person's character as to how he treats somebody that can do nothing for him. Obviously, I had no seniority, was not anyone of any influence in Congress; and yet his kindness will long be appreciated and remembered. So Doug was a great influence on me and on this body and will be greatly missed. Madam Speaker, I yield the remaining time that we have to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is also a great friend of Doug's; and I am honored that he would come down here tonight and manage the last part of this hour.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a pleasure to be able to speak for a few minutes here on Vince Dooley. I first met Vince in 1969, when he was coaching at the University of Georgia and I was an assistant coach at the University of Nebraska, and I was impressed by his humility, his willingness to talk to a lowly assistant coach. Of course, 24 years as a head coach and 25 years as Athletic Director is unprecedented. Many people say one year in coaching is like a dog year, so Vince is about 175 years old by that figure. I thought that Vince was just an excellent representative of college football. He was a leader in regard to the Rules Committee, he worked on the College Football Association, was a very good person as far as compromise, keeping people on an even keel, because sometimes things got a little heated. Of course, Vince, I guess nobody knows for sure what his politics are, but his wife ran for Congress as a Democrat and then again as a Republican. So he obviously is a man who has a very even keel. I think Barbara was a great asset to Vince, they are a great team. Of course, Vince has been a tremendous asset to the University of Georgia, to college football, and, of course, the State of Georgia. So it is a pleasure for me to have a couple of minutes to talk about Vince. We wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday H.R. 4703 was introduced in response to a report issued by the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. The findings of the study are as follows: Number one, 10 million American teens are plagued by poverty, abuse and neglect, academic failure and substance abuse. Number two, the Federal Government has created 355 programs to serve youth in response to these deficits and afflictions. The result has been chaotic. Two-thirds of the programs evaluated by OMB were rated ineffective or redundant. This bill would create a Federal Youth Development Council. The Council is charged with, number one, improving and coordinating youth- serving programs; number two, issuing an annual report on youth programs and their effectiveness; and, number three, setting quantifiable goals and developing a plan for each program. This legislation will allow more children in need to be served more effectively. It is supported by an overwhelming majority of youth agencies. I urge support of H.R. 4703.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which will do so much to assist children across the county. I would like to point out a few things specifically that I believe make this an excellent reauthorization. We all know that childhood obesity has grown to epidemic proportions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that over 15 percent of children ages 6 to 11 were overweight in 1999 and 2000, more than triple the average of 4.2 percent from 1962 to 1970. While this bill does not dictate to a school how to set priorities on nutrition and exercise, it does require schools to set locally determined wellness policies that encourage nutrition and physical activity. Although this language does not go as far as I would personally like to see, I believe it is a strong step in the right direction and I applaud the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee Mr. Boehner, and especially Chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, Mr. Castle for their efforts in this area. In addition, the bill authorizes and expands the fresh fruit and vegetable pilot program, which is currently operating in a number of schools around the country with tremendous success. The bill also strengthens partnerships between local schools and local farmers in an effort to see more locally grown produce on school lunch tables. I think this is a fair bill, a good bill, and our Nation's children will benefit from the commonsense reforms in this legislation. I urge passage of S. 2507.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4363, the Helping Hands for Homeownership Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this very important legislation. The legislation corrects an interpretation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Fiscal Year 2004 which prevents families who received Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program funds from fulfilling their ``sweat equity'' requirement by working on other program homes. The legislation corrects this interpretation by HUD and clarifies Congress' intent to permit organizations like Habitat for Humanity to allow their homeowners to work on other homes to fulfill their sweat equity requirements. Each Habitat for Humanity Chapter has established its own requirement for sweat equity hours. The Habitat for Humanity chapter in Grand Island, Nebraska, requires their homeowners to put in 500 hours of sweat equity. Mr. Speaker, there have been several instances where the homeowners have put most of their sweat equity into other Habitat for Humanity Homes to fulfill the 500 hour requirement. I would like to give you two examples. One Habitat family's home was primarily built by a local high school as learning project. The family did put sweat equity hours into their home, but had to put the additional required hours into other Habitat homes to complete their sweat equity. Under this interpretation by HUD, the family would not have been allowed to live in this home since they would not have been able to complete the 500 hours of sweat equity that was required. Another example from the same chapter was of a family who had completed most of their sweat equity hours in other Habitat homes in the community before construction was to begin on their home. Before construction was to begin on their home, another Habitat home that had been completed earlier became available when a Habitat family moved out of town, allowing this family an opportunity to purchase the home and move in. Had this interpretation by HUD been in place, the family would not have been allowed to move into this home because they had not put 500 hours of sweat equity into this Habitat home. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Green for introducing this important legislation. I would also like to thank Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for including an amendment to this legislation that will change the name of the USDA Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan Guarantee Program to the Doug Bereuter Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan Guarantee Program. My colleague, Mr. Bereuter, was the legislative author of this very important program which was enacted on November 28, 1990. Since 1990, the program has assisted low- to moderate-income borrowers in obtaining over 316,000 single-family home loans in rural and non-metropolitan communities. Mr. Bereuter will be retiring from the House at the end of August, 2004, and this is an appropriate way to thank Mr. Bereuter for all of his hard work on this essential program that has helped thousands of families become homeowners in rural and non-metropolitan areas.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2238, the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. S. 2238 was originally H.R. 253 which was authored by my dear colleague and fellow Nebraskan, Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska, and cosponsored by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon. Both Members have been strong advocates for reforming the National Flood Insurance program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, since the 106th Congress. Mr. Bereuter has been a champion of this legislation for the last 14 years. The legislation will extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through September 30, 2008, and create a temporary pilot program to address severe repetitive loss properties (SRLPs). The authorization of the NFIP is set to expire on June 30, 2004. I support the temporary pilot program included in this important legislation because it will address the problem of severe repetitive loss properties for which many communities in my district are paying increased premiums. I have numerous communities in my district paying substantial premiums on properties that have not been affected by flooding since the beginning of the program. One example is North Platte, Nebraska. The community sits between the North and South Platte Rivers. The North and South Platte Rivers merge east of North Platte. While the National Flood Insurance Program has been in place since 1968, North Platte has paid over $1 million in premiums each year, but has not received more than $26 thousand in flood insurance claims during that time. The community has been working diligently with FEMA and the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources to reduce the cost of the National Flood Insurance premiums, but premiums continue to remain high. That is why I support S. 2238. S. 2238 authorizes up to $40 million a year to be transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund for mitigation assistance to reduce the problem of SRLPs. The money in the National Flood Insurance Fund comes from flood insurance premiums from policyholders and would not need an appropriation. This pilot program, which would expire on September 30, 2009, addresses these properties in a simple, straightforward manner; the owner of a SRLP will be charged a rate closer to the actuarial, risk- based rates for their national flood insurance policy if two conditions prevail. The first condition is that it is indeed by definition a SRLP. Under this legislation, a severe repetitive loss property must at least meet one of the following two definitions: Four or more separate claims have been made, with the amount of each claim exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount exceeding $20,000; at least two claims have been made which exceed the value of the property. The second condition which would cause the applicability of closer to actuarial rates to be applied is that the owner of the real property must have refused a mitigation measure from a state or locality, such as the elevation of the structure or a buy-out of the property. If both of these conditions have been met, rates for SRLPs will be increased by 50 percent. Properties will be subject to additional 50 percent increases for each subsequent flood event where claims payments exceed $1,500. However, flood insurance rates applied cannot be higher than the actuarial based NFIP rates. I would again like to thank Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Blumenauer for their tireless determination to improve the National Flood Insurance Program to assist those communities that have not had repetitive losses.

Mr. OSBORNE

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. 66.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) for sponsoring this legislation and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, for supporting it. Madam Speaker, we live in troubled times for young people. Over 36 years of coaching I saw cultural changes that negatively impacted children. The out-of-wedlock birth rate went from 5 percent in 1960 to roughly 33 percent today. The United States has become the most violent nation in the world for young people in terms of homicide and suicide. Drug and alcohol addiction has increased dramatically. We currently have roughly 3 million teenage alcoholics and hundreds of thousands who are addicted to other types of drugs. Teen pregnancy has skyrocketed. The greatest single factor in this alarming transformation has been fatherlessness. There are currently 24 million fatherless children in the United States. Up to 60 percent of today's children will spend at least part of their childhood separated from their biological fathers, and many fathers who are present are emotionally absent because of work commitment and simple lack of interest in their children's lives. Fatherless children have a great deal of trauma and dysfunction in their lives. They are much more likely to commit crimes and engage in substance abuse. Approximately 70 percent of prison inmates grew up without fathers. Fatherless children have lower grades and higher dropout rates. The dropout rate for fatherless children is roughly double that of other children. Fatherless children are five times more likely to live in poverty, are more likely to be promiscuous. And three out of four suicides take place in a home where a parent is absent, and psychiatric problems are four to five times more prevalent for fatherless children. So when a dad walks out, it leaves a vacuum that is often filled with all of the wrong stuff. This is the biggest threat that we experience in our culture today, so I would like to take this opportunity particularly to thank those fathers who do stay the course. While some have minimized the importance of fatherhood, the evidence is overwhelming that a father makes a unique contribution in the lives of his children. It takes both a father and a mother living in a committed relationship to develop stable children and a strong culture. Some have denigrated the institution of marriage and said fathers really are somewhat irrelevant, and obviously the facts belie that. Fathers are critical, as are mothers, to a strong society. Madam Speaker, I want to urge support to the National Center on Fathering created by Ken Canfield. Mentoring programs have been very important around the country to fill the gap in fatherlessness, and all of the initiatives which promote and strengthen fatherhood. We currently see an encouraging increase in interest and recognition of the importance of fatherhood. I guess in what might otherwise be a rather bleak picture, this is somewhat of an encouraging sign. I urge adoption of House Resolution 66. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 66) supporting responsible fatherhood and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day.

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

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, often perception does not match reality. I believe that this is true in regard to our present economy. Many would characterize the economy as very poor. However, as we can see on the following chart, short-term interest rates are the lowest in 40 years; inflation, according to the Producer Price Index, was 1.5 percent over the last 12 months; productivity expanded 5 percent the last four quarters, the highest in 20 years; manufacturing employment reached a 30-year high in May with orders up for manufacturing; and home ownership was 68.6 percent last quarter, which is a record. All of these things would indicate a strong economy, so what is the problem? Why do people continually talk about what a bad economy we have? I would say that probably the main concern that we hear is simply what one of the previous speakers referred to, unemployment. I would like to call attention to the fact that during the 1970s, the unemployment rate was 6.2 percent for that 10-year average; during the 1980s, it was 7.3 percent; during the 1990s, it was 5.8 percent; and, today, in 2004, it stands at 5.6 percent. We added 248,000 new jobs to the economy in the month of May, and during the last 9 months of consecutive growth, we have added 1.5 million jobs to the economy. Certainly this 5.6 percent rate is considerably lower than the 30- year average of 6.4 percent. Currently unemployment in the European Union runs 9 to 10 percent. So we see some remarkable gains, and it appears that even though we would hope that unemployment would be zero, we are at least moving certainly in the right direction. This does not mean that the economy is not without challenge. We feel that there is one significant issue that needs to be dealt with, and that is the issue of energy policy. This is well within the purview and the domain of this particular body. Currently we have higher energy prices, which affects trucking, airlines, agriculture, small business, manufacturing and individuals. Yet we cannot get an energy bill passed, even though there is widespread agreement on most of the provisions in the bill. I am going to put some of those issues up here that we think are a matter of considerable consensus. In the energy bill that has been passed by the House and the Senate, yet we cannot get a conference report agreed upon, is the renewable fuel standard, which provides for wind energy, solar energy, ethanol, biodiesel, hydro, all environmentally friendly and will move us away from energy dependence upon OPEC. Also hydrogen fuel cell development is critical. This is environmentally friendly and is not dependent on petroleum. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, we have all kinds of natural gas available in our country today, particularly in Alaska, and we cannot access it, so this pipeline is critical to reducing natural gas prices, which are eating us up at the present time. Finally, incentives to increase energy production. We have shut down our exploration and energy production, and that has certainly hurt the economy. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the economy is strong, and Congress can fix the biggest obstacle to a period of sustained growth, the lack of a comprehensive energy policy. We can continue to blame the other party, Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, we can blame the other body, they can blame us. We can do all of the finger pointing we want out there, but the buck really stops here. It is our responsibility, and the American people have every right to expect Congress to put the country's welfare ahead of partisanship. We need an energy bill passed, and we need it passed now. We can start on that this week. I am hoping that all of us here in this Congress can work together to put the national interests ahead of anything else and get this finished. There really are no excuses for not doing so.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for providing so many of us with this opportunity. I would like to express my appreciation to President Reagan for his adherence to principle rather than to expediency; for standing firm against America's enemies when so many urged containment and conciliation; for displaying a sense of humor when events were grim; for being decent when indecency was so common; for realizing that an offensive strategy is superior to defense when confronted by grave danger; for restoring a troubled economy by putting more resources in the people's hands and less in the government's hands; for promoting optimism when many were discouraged; for his capacity to disagree without being disagreeable; for his willingness to reach out to members of both parties in uniting, rather than dividing, this country; for showing kindness in the face of hostility; for communicating so clearly with words from his own heart and mind, written by his own hands; for inspiring courage in others through his own courage; and finally, for displaying trust in God, rather than human institutions, through an unwavering faith in God's sovereignty and mercy.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, it seems that in these debates we so often get sidetracked into discussions of ideology, and I think it is important we focus on the bill before us. I certainly have great respect for those on the minority side and understand and appreciate some of their concerns. I think it is important that we point out that this is a pilot bill. This is not something that is going to directly impact all workers everywhere in the country. And the reason I think this is important to point out is that, as the chairman mentioned, there will be several different programs that people can allocate their money into. And let us see if Congress cannot find out exactly where people want to put their money. So if 50 percent of the money goes to child care, and 10 percent goes to enhancing computer skills, and 40 percent goes into career counseling, pretty soon Congress is going to get a picture as to what is really important to workers and where those resources need to be allocated. This certainly represents an innovative approach to providing assistance to unemployment workers. As the chairman mentioned, we live in a different world. I think the average worker today may have as many as four or five different jobs. And this is not necessarily because the economy is bad, it is simply because the economy is changing consistently. So almost everyone at one time or another is going to be between jobs or without a job. I think this approach offers some unique opportunities. It certainly offers great flexibility, and this is the critical part in job training. It may have to do with computer skills, it may be earning a license to be a realtor, a financial planner, or 1 year at a community college, which I think is a tremendous option for a great many people. We feel also that child care, transportation, career counseling, relocation services, housing assistance are viable alternatives as well. The last thing I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is simply the fact that there are some incentives here for people to not only get a job but to have some money, some seed money to get started on their new career. For instance, as an example, a person had a $3,000 grant and $2,000 of it was spent, maybe some of it on community college, some for child care, and there was $1,000 remaining. This would leave $600 at employment that person could use to get back on their feet and $400 to be used after 6 months of employment. So we think that this is certainly an interesting and flexible approach. I urge support of this bill, H.R. 444.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and also the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for bringing this bill to the floor. It seems like we get involved in extraneous arguments here and do not pay attention to the specific bill before us. I am sure we will eventually get to student loans and Pell grants as time goes on. I am particularly interested in two aspects of this bill. As my colleague mentioned, I did serve as a faculty member, 2 years as a young man in graduate school, and then just 3 years ago I again was in a teacher's college for 2 years. So really there are two aspects of this bill that are very interesting to me. One is the issue of accountability. Because we give Federal grants to colleges and universities for teacher training, and oft-times we really have no rating as to what the results are. So, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and as the Chairman have mentioned, accountability is a big part of this bill. So this is done by comparing one college, one university with another, which I think is very important, State-by-State comparison. Then, of course, the Secretary of Education must report to Congress each year on the overall state of the Nation's teacher training. Some colleges and universities do a great job of training teachers, and some really do a rather poor job, and I think that will eventually show up. The second main point of encouragement here is I serve a very rural district, a lot of small schools, roughly 400 that have 600 or less students. So, as a result, most of these school districts do not have somebody teaching advanced math, they do not have somebody teaching Russian, they do not have somebody teaching German, they have nobody teaching physics, and so it has to be done by distance learning. A big part of this bill is to ensure competence on the part of teachers in terms of technology, the ability to deliver successfully classroom education via ESUs and via the Internet. So I think this is really going to serve those schools that are widely dispersed and those students that are served in very small schools very well. This is a well-crafted piece of legislation. I want to congratulate the Chairman and the author.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for advancing this legislation. I would particularly like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for inspiring this legislation and having a great deal to do with its inception. Mr. Speaker, in 2000, Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs. In 2001, more than one million children ages 12 to 17 used performance enhancing substances, and 390,000 children aged 10 to 14 used performance enhancing drugs or supplements. Chief among these substances used by teenagers was androstendione, which Mark McGwire admitted using when setting the record. Mr. Speaker, androstendione is a steroid precursor. It is not a steroid under current definition; yet when ingested, it becomes a steroid, and it can be purchased over the counter by teenagers. Androstendione and other precursors are banned by the NCAA, the United States Olympic Committee, the National Football League, and the National Basketball Association; but it is not banned by Major League Baseball, high schools and junior high schools; and this just does not make any sense. Steroids and steroid precursors cause cancer of the liver and kidneys, heart disease, stunt growth, cause extreme aggression and depression sometimes leading to teenage suicide, and the younger the user the more negative the consequences. But they also can build muscle, and therein lies the problem. It is a very dangerous situation. I have three major concerns here: number one, many children do not know the risks. They assume that over-the-counter drugs are safe if they are sold over the counter. Also, 40 percent of supplements contain banned substances. They are not labeled correctly. Number two, many young people will sacrifice health to gain a competitive edge. They know what the risks are, yet to win an Olympic medal, to win an athletic scholarship, to look more muscular, to make the team, they will actually sacrifice years off their life. Number three, the use of steroids and precursors threatens the integrity of athletic competition. Do the 70 home runs in the year 2000 indicate greater athletic achievement than 65 home runs in the 1960s, or does it indicate better chemistry? We really will not know, and it is not fair to those who are competing today and those who competed 30, 40 and 50 years ago. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for their work. I urge support of H.R. 3866. This bill addresses the issue of steroid precursors; designer steroids, such as THD; and strengthens penalties for distribution of steroid products.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memories of eight brave soldiers from the Third District of Nebraska who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of our country. Spc. Dennis B. Morgan, 22, of Valentine, Nebrask; Pvt. Noah L. Boye, 21, of Grand Island, Nebraska; Sgt. Cory R. Mracek, 26, of Hay Springs, Nebraska; Sgt. Dennis A. Corral, 33, of Kearney, Nebraska; Spc. James R. Wolf, 21, of Scottsbluff, Nebraska; Spc. Blake C. Kelly, 21 of Columbus, Nebraska; Petty Officer 3rd Class David J. Moreno, 26, Gering, Nebraska; and Capt. Travis A. Ford, 30, of Ogallala, Nebraska. Having been in Iraq and Afghanistan just a few months ago, I fully appreciate the character and commitment of our troops. We are truly blessed to have this quality of soldiers protecting our country. We will never be able to express to these families our appreciation for what their loved ones have sacrificed for our freedom. I know that words cannot lessen the grief that each family is experiencing. I want you to know that I share some of that grief, because all of us in Congress feel deeply responsible for our troops. I can assure you that these eight soldiers have not been lost in vain. All of us are resolved to see this matter through to a successful conclusion, so that Dennis; Noah; Cory; Dennis; James; Blake; David; and Travis sacrifice and memory are honored. Mr. Speaker, may we all take a moment this Memorial Day to remember that our freedom has been bought with a price.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act and the rule. This bill contains tremendous support for our military. Among those items that I think are particularly noteworthy is increased housing benefits for our troops; a pay raise, including an increased pay raise for hardship duty; additional health care benefits for Reservists; additional armor for Humvees; body armor; better survivor benefits; an increase of 30,000 troops, which I think at the present time we very badly need; and the most efficient weapons system available. A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, I visited Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and talked to an awful lot of our troops over there; and I was singularly impressed with the quality, the commitment, and the expertise of the troops that I met. This was one week before Christmas, and yet I did not hear one complaint from any one of the soldiers that I talked to. They seemed to have a tremendously strong sense of mission. A young captain from my home State of Nebraska who had been away from his wife and infant child for 1 year made two comments that stuck with me that I think are worth repeating. First of all, he said that it is better that we fight terrorists here in the Middle East than we fight them at home. I think that all of us realize we are not completely immune from terrorism on these shores. However, we would also have to recognize the fact that terrorism has certainly been crippled. It has had to focus its attacks primarily in the Middle East. It certainly has made the United States a safer place over the last year and a half. Then the second comment that he made I think is particularly important. He said it is really important that the American people not lose patience, and I would say that includes Congress as well, because the captain was proud of the accomplishments that our military had accomplished in that area. What he was pointing out, simply, was the improvement in the infrastructure; the increase in commerce in that part of the world; the improvement in health care; the fact that infants, young people, about 90 percent of them had been vaccinated in Iraq; the improvement in government, at least the potential for a representative government to be formed. So we certainly believe that the quality of people we have over there is exceptional, they deserve our support, and this bill does that.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's leadership on the subcommittee and in the area of education in general. As he mentioned, in the late 1800s, Plessy v. Ferguson set forth the separate but equal doctrine which really codified and legitimized segregation in the schools, and we ended up living with that for about 60 or 70 years. Of course, that was devastating to not only African Americans but all minority groups. The gentleman has done a good job of explaining Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, overturning the separate but equal ruling. Of course, this was a landmark decision that formally ended segregation in the schools. Yet as the gentleman has also pointed out, inequities in education still remain over this last 50 years, and I guess we are today celebrating the 50th year anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Some groups in our schools are still achieving at much higher rates than others. Statistics indicate that in the fourth grade, Caucasian students are performing on achievement tests about 30 percent higher than African American and Hispanic students. This gap obviously is unacceptable. Some of these differences, I believe, are due to socioeconomic factors, but many are differences simply due to inequities and differences in the schooling and the schools that they are attending. Since 1954, over 300 billion Federal dollars have been spent on education. With that type of expenditure, we would expect to see that achievement gap narrowing rather dramatically and probably disappearing. Yet the academic achievement gap is still persisting. Until just the last couple of years actually in many cases it has widened. Another inequity that I have noticed through my personal experience, the gentleman mentioned that I used to work on a college campus and I traveled throughout the country. I visited each year annually probably 60 or 70 high schools. Over 36 years in the coaching profession, I probably evaluated hundreds of transcripts. One of the disconcerting things that I ran into was that occasionally I would run across a transcript that by all measures and all standards looked pretty good. The young person graduated from high school, had the right courses, had reasonably good grades; and then you discover that that young person could not read or could not do basic math. Of course, this has become a major problem in terms of the well-being of our country. Another problem that we ran into quite frequently was simply comparison with other nations. Within the last couple of years, I believe we have had some international tests. The United States ranks 19th out of 21 nations in advanced math and science. Of course, when you attempt to compete on the international scale, it is almost impossible to do well ranking in those areas. Alan Greenspan recently indicated in a hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce that we are not producing enough high school and college graduates with technical skills to fill the jobs that we have in this culture. As a result, we are having to import a fairly high number of people to fill these jobs. All of these things, I think, have made, as the gentleman mentioned, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act particularly important. Oftentimes we hear this referred to as the President's bill or a Republican bill. I would like to point out that this was a bipartisan bill. I believe that it passed the House with about 90 percent of the Members voting for the bill, and in the Senate it was just about the same way. This was certainly authored by both sides of the aisle. As my colleague knows, a couple of the major provisions of the act that I think address some of the previously mentioned failings of our educational system are, first of all, accountability on the part of the students. Obviously, the testing in math and science, grades 3 through 8, is critical. It provides some standards, some evaluation because so often we found that students were simply being passed along because they were a certain age or had attended the grade before and had not really mastered the fundamentals. I guess again as a former coach, I knew that if you did not master the basics, the fundamentals, you were not going to go any higher. You were pretty limited in what you could account for. Then also, of course, the parents many times were deceived because the child would simply be passed along. They would not realize really where that young person ranked in terms of his understanding of basic math and science. These schools also now, of course, are being held accountable. This has caused a great deal of anxiety and discomfort, as I am sure my colleague has heard and run into. I think one thing that I would like to point out is that the bill does not label schools as failing. It simply says that those schools that are not performing in an adequate way will be given extra resources; and after 3 years of underperforming, a student may transfer from one school to another so they will not be trapped in an underperforming school. The State where I operate most of the time, out in a rural area with small towns, there really are not very many choices. You either are going to go to the local school or no other school at all. We find that most of those schools do a great job. I would like to mention just three or four other things, and then I will turn it back over to the gentleman from Delaware. I think one element of No Child Left Behind that really addresses some of the issues in Brown v. Board of Education has to do with the disaggregation of statistics. We found that many schools on the face of it were doing quite well; and yet when you began to break it down, you began to realize that some of the subgroups, maybe those students who were disabled in some way, or maybe those students from different ethnic minorities, were really not making any progress, but there were enough students in the school that were scoring well to indicate that that school was doing well. Under No Child Left Behind, the subgroups are required to make adequate progress as well. We think that this will really do some significant things in narrowing those achievement gaps. Another misconception that I often run into as I travel my district regarding No Child Left Behind is that somehow the Federal Government is not doing an adequate job of funding. There is some debate in terms of the testing and all that type of thing as to whether it is adequately funded. The General Accounting Office indicates that it is. But still I think it is important that we point out that over the last 2 years since No Child Left Behind, the Federal funding has increased by $9.7 billion, which is a 35 percent increase. When you figure the cost of inflation is maybe 5 or 6 percent over that 2-year period, this is one of the largest bumps in education spending that we have seen in any 2-year period. We feel that certainly the funding has been very adequate. I think one reason why so many people feel that the Federal Government is not holding their end up on this is that the States have lost so much funding and they have had to cut their spending on education; and even though the Federal Government is increasing, sometimes our increase is not as fast as the States are cutting. Greater flexibility, I think, is an important part of this bill. Again, I will just address some rural issues which my colleague may not run into as much. We often find in small rural schools that they do not have grant writers, and whatever pots of money they access from the Federal Government are so small that they are hardly worth going after. In the No Child Left Behind Act, we are able to pool those moneys and use them in useful ways. That has been very helpful. We have also done some things where any school district with less than 600 students is able to qualify for an extra $20,000 to $40,000, which really has made a huge difference in those schools. Then one thing that has been very important to me is the issue of mentoring, because we have seen so much more dysfunction over the years with our young people. When I first started coaching in 1962, I would say that maybe one out of every 10 young people was from a dysfunctional situation. When I ended up my coaching career in 1997, I would say that was pretty close to 50 percent. Roughly one-half of our young people grow up without both biological parents. As a result, many times schools are dealing with problems that parents at one time dealt with. If a child comes to school with a lot of unmet emotional needs, maybe he is being abused at home, maybe he is hungry, whatever, that child is not going to learn very well. We have found that it is very important that you provide a caring adult in that child's life. We have in No Child Left Behind provided some pretty significant resources for mentoring, including children of prisoners. Often a child of a prisoner, his main goal is to do hard time. That cycle has to be broken. I guess the last comment that I would make is simply something that I think my colleague probably will flesh out a little bit in greater detail, simply that we are beginning to see the achievement gap narrowing a little bit, at least in some areas. That is in a relatively short period of time. That is encouraging. I think, as the gentleman has pointed out, there is definitely a link between the Brown v. Board of Education ruling 50 years ago and No Child Left Behind, which was passed in 2001. I think a lot of people may not make that link, but I think, as the gentleman said, that the No Child Left Behind legislation may be the most significant thing in terms of equality in our country since that ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. I appreciate the gentleman having this Special Order tonight, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to make a couple of comments.