Tom Osborne

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from California for her assistance through this process. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, in 1983, the United States embassy in Beirut was bombed. Sixty-three were killed; 120 were wounded. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut. Three hundred troops, nearly all United States troops, were killed. In 1988, Pan Am 103 was bombed; 259 were killed. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. Six killed, 1,000 injured. In 1996, the Khobar Towers was bombed. Nineteen U.S. soldiers killed, 240 injured. In 1998, the U.S. embassy in Kenya was bombed; 361 were killed, 5,000 injured. And in 2000, the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 were injured. In those seven attacks, more than 1,000 people were killed. This was double our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq at the present time which total roughly 435. Yet during those seven attacks and after those seven attacks, there was very little response from the United States. As a result of those attacks, we withdrew from Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. I believe that this conveyed a very clear message to those who believe in terrorism. The message was this, that when attacked consistently over time, the United States will back down, will lose its will, and, of course, these attacks then led up to 9/11. Following the loss of more than 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, we finally took a stand. The overwhelming majority of us in this body gave the President the authority to move aggressively against terrorism. We knew that this was hazardous. Sometimes we get the impression that we did not really know what we were doing. Yet I for one, and I think many people here, assumed that there might be some biological and chemical attacks against our troops, that taking Iraq was going to cost at least thousands if not tens of thousands of lives. Yet the results were remarkable. We gained control of Afghanistan and Iraq in a few months, and we lost less than 500 troops. I would say that a military accomplishment of this kind is pretty much unprecedented in military annals. We also knew that securing the peace is always difficult. After World War I, after World War II, Kosovo, it was not easy at all; and it took a long time, and there was loss of life. Yet statements emanating from the Congress that we should pull out, that we should bring the troops home, that this war was created to boost the President's numbers, reading letters from those who have suffered loss or are discouraged, stating there is no plan for reconstruction, all encourage terrorists to believe that if they persist that we will fold, that we will lack the will and the resolve to win the war. To not see this through is to dishonor the memory of every soldier lost and to render meaningless their families' suffering. To not see this through will leave Iraq open to Saddam's return and a betrayal of Iraqis who have helped. I am sure this is one thing that they all fear. It happened after the Gulf War. Many Iraqis who extended themselves to help the United States and allied forces suffered retribution. I think in the back of their minds is the idea that maybe this will happen again. The only satisfactory solution is to win. To lose will invite ever-increasing terrorism, and I think most people in this Chamber understand that. To achieve victory in the swiftest possible manner with the least loss of life, this country and this Congress needs to stand united. We did so for a period of time after 9/11. This was the most encouraging period of my short tenure here in Congress. Because what I saw was that party loyalties and personal ambitions were put aside. I think the overwhelming motivation for everyone in this body was to simply serve their country the best that we could. Unity of purpose and a collective will to win will prevail. Division and second-guessing and finger- pointing and politicization will only serve to prolong the struggle and cause further loss of life and suffering. From my perspective, failure is not an option. I hope the Congress can pull together. The threat is as real today as it was on 9/11.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003, which passed the House Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2003. The Basic Pilot Verification Program is a voluntary program that employers use in conjunction with the Bureau of Immigration and Citizenship Services (BCIS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to confirm employment eligibility in my home State of Nebraska, among others. This pilot, which started in November 1997, involves verification checks of the SSA and the BCIS databases of all newly hired employees regardless of citizenship. Unfortunately, the Basic Pilot program is scheduled to terminate on November 30 of this year. The agricultural economy of Nebraska's Third District relies heavily on immigrant labor. Employers across my district have told me that they want to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it unlawful for employers to knowlingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work, and required employers to verify documents of new workers. However, a simply visual check of these documents by employers will not tell them if these are in fact counterfeit documents, and that this potential new hire is in fact an illegal alien. I have heard from many business people in the Third District about their need for the Basic Pilot program. Employers need the appropriate tools to ensure that they are indeed hiring eligible workers. By checking the new hire's documents against the BCIS and SSA databases, the Basic Pilot program allows employers to feel more confident about their new hire. H.R. 2359 will extend the Basic Pilot program for employers in Nebraska and all other states for five years. I thank my colleague, Representative Calvert, for introducing this much needed extension, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2359.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for shepherding this legislation through the committee in a truly bipartisan fashion. I think it is well-written and well-received by everyone concerned, so I would like to express my support for H.R. 3076. H.R. 1, better known as No Child Left Behind, certainly raises the bar regarding teacher qualifications. And so to do this, we will need to improve our teacher training programs at the postsecondary level. We are currently experiencing a teacher shortage crisis of tremendous magnitude across the country, especially in the areas of math, science, special ed, and bilingual language teachers. My daughter, actually, is an English-as-a-second-language teacher, and I realize how scarce these teachers are. This bill will especially improve teacher training in these underserved areas. Another area of the legislation that really appeals to me is that it provides for some competitive grant programs to encourage innovation and reform in higher education. So often, in our teachers' colleges, we see things done the same way they were done 20 years ago, and so I think this is badly needed, to have some innovative creative ideas. So these grants, I think, will serve us well. So I think this is an excellent piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I endorse it wholeheartedly, as I think everyone on the Committee on Education and the Workforce does, and I thank the chairman for his efforts in this regard.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to hear British Prime Minister Tony Blair speak in this Chamber a few months ago, and one comment he made particularly caught my attention. He said, ``As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but in fact, it is transitory.'' I think what he was saying is that essentially nothing lasts forever, including great nations. History teaches us that, most of the world's great powers are not overcome by external force, but rather disintegrate internally. And let us take a quick study of three such examples. Rome, of course, 2,000 odd years ago, stood astride the then- civilized world and appeared to be invincible. Yet it fell from preeminence, and the reasons historians have given us, there was a general decline in morality, increasing corruption and instability in leadership, an increasing public addiction to ever more violent public spectacles, an increase in crime and prostitution, and a populace that had become more self-absorbed, apathetic, and unwilling to sacrifice for the common good. Then, of course, the country that Tony Blair was referring to, Great Britain, had a colonial empire that dominated much of the world through much of the 1800s, and, of course, that empire slowly began to crumble. The reasons that some have given for this demise was that Great Britain had lost the national resolve to maintain its territory, values that led to ascendancy were eroded, spiritual underpinnings were shifted at some point. The third example would be the Soviet Union, one of two great super powers as recently as 20 years ago, and in a matter of months, Russian disintegrated before our eyes. Alexander Solzhenitsyn reflected on this fall when he observed that, ``Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall a number of older people offering the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia, men have forgotten God, that is why all of this has happened.'' And so, Marx and Lenin dismantled Russia's heritage and value system. Russia's foundation was broken, and it collapsed like a house of cards with nothing to sustain it. These are just three examples. I think there are many others that history is replete with that show the declines of some great nations, again without any outside military intervention. I think some of the common themes that we begin to see are that in cases like these, citizens are less willing to sacrifice for others and for country, citizens become more self-absorbed, a greater desire for comfort, for the state to provide for their welfare, a weakening of commonly held values and a decline of spiritual commitment in those countries. What does all this have to do with the United States and our present situation? I hope I am not overdrawing the case here, but I would have to say that right now we are certainly on top, we have the most powerful military, the strongest economy, the most stable government of any nation in the world and so it is easy to think, as Tony Blair mentioned, that we are invincible but also as he said, as Britain knows, all predominant power for a time seems invincible, but in fact it is transitory. I think that was a well-taken word of warning. Over 36 years of coaching and dealing with young people, I saw some very disturbing signs. I am going to take some time this evening to develop the theme that I saw occurring before my very eyes over that 36-year period that I think certainly bode a sense of warning, at least as far as I am concerned. The young men that I worked with were more talented with each year, yet they showed more signs of stress, they had more personal struggles, and they had less moral clarity as the years went by. This chart here to my left reflects at least one alarming trend. In 1960, which was about the time that I started working with young people, we had roughly 400,000 cases that were referred to the juvenile courts. In 1999, that figure was well over 1.6 million. I would say today in 2003, this is the most recent figures that we have, but I would imagine that by 2002, 2003, the caseload is much higher. That represents a 400 percent increase. I really do not care what figure you look at; you will find that the chart looks about like this for issues such as teen pregnancy, teenage murder, violence, drug and alcohol abuse involving teenagers and, of course, the divorce rate for seniors and all the other social pathology that we are so familiar with. I think there are several factors that contributed to these changes that we see here. I would say the first major factor is simply some of the things that have happened to our family structure in the United States. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 5 percent. Today it is right at 33 percent, a 600 percent increase. So roughly one out of three children coming into our Nation today have basically two strikes against them and in most cases will not have both a father and mother to care for them. Some will, but most will not. In 1960, the great majority of children lived with both biological parents. Today nearly one-half grow up without both biological parents. Only 7 percent of today's families are traditional families as we would normally define it, with usually a father working full-time, a mother at home full-time or vice versa, but at least one parent being at home and one parent being the primary provider. This is according to the Fatherhood Initiative statistics. So actually in many cases, and as a matter of fact in some cases, in most cases with our children, nobody is home after 3 p.m., and between 3 and 6 p.m. we find the greatest source of problems, of criminal activity and so on with our children, because no one is home. Parents today spend 40 percent less time with their children than they did a generation ago. The divorce rate, of course, has increased 300 percent since 1960 and 24 million children today live without their biological father. Fatherless children are more likely to be abused, have mental and emotional problems, abuse drugs and alcohol, commit suicide, commit a crime and be promiscuous. I think this is graphically driven home when we realize what a greeting card company did a few years ago when they approached the prisoners in one of our Federal prisons. It was Mother's Day. They said, we'll give you prisoners a Mother's Day card free if you'll just simply send your mother a card and they had almost 100 percent participation. And so they thought that this was somewhat gratifying. They thought, well, when Father's Day comes around, we will do the same thing. They made the same offer with Father's Day cards and as you may suppose, maybe you would not suppose, there were no takers. That shows you the devastation, particularly in some of our disaffected population, that fatherlessness has caused and I think really is at the root of most of the social pathology that we see in front of us. The foundation of our culture, the family, is certainly under assault and we have seen great changes over the last 30 to 40 years. Another major issue that has contributed to some of the problems that our young people are dealing with today is that the environment has changed. The environment that they live and move and have their being in is not the same as it was back in the 1940s and the 1950s and even the early part of the 1960s. In 1960, drug abuse was almost unheard of. I know in the area of the country that I lived in, I had heard the word marijuana, I had never seen any instances of it, had never heard of cocaine, methamphetamines, ecstacy and so on; and of course today those drugs are of somewhat epidemic proportion. Alcohol abuse involving underage drinking has exploded. I would like to take a little time right now, Mr. Speaker, to develop this particular theme because so often we feel in the United States that the drug problem has to do with hard drugs, but by far the biggest drug problem that we are facing today with our young people is that of alcohol. A recent National Academy of Science study that was released, I believe 2 weeks ago, showed that alcohol kills 6.5 times more children than all other drugs combined. More than cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all of those drugs put together, alcohol kills 6.5 times more. Underage drinking costs the U.S. $53 billion annually, 2\1/2\ times what it is going to cost us to rebuild Iraq. There are more than 3 million teenage alcoholics estimated in our country today. This is by far the biggest drug problem. The average age of first drink in our country is currently 12.8 years of age, less than 13 years of age; and the discouraging thing is that when young people drink, on the average they will consume almost twice as much alcohol per occurrence as an adult will. So young people on average tend to drink to get drunk and they often do. Twenty percent of our eighth graders drink regularly. Children who drink before age 15 are four times more likely to become alcoholics because of psychological and physiological immaturity. Alcohol impacts them much differently when they are 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 years old than it impacts them when they are 24, 25, or 26. And so there is a great increase in addiction. The thing that I would really like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is this, that young people for the most part do not start their experimentation with illegal drugs by using marijuana, they do not start with cocaine, they do not start with methamphetamine. They start with alcohol. Therefore, if you really want to stop the abuse of hard drugs, the important thing to do is start with stopping the abuse of alcohol with underage drinkers. Yet we have really pretty much ignored this whole problem because we spend more than 25 times as much money on curbing illegal hard drugs as we do on underage drinking. We spend a minimal amount discouraging young people from drinking as underaged young people. We spend hundreds of millions to fight drug production in Afghanistan and Colombia and around the world and a fraction of that money spent on curbing underage drinking would be more cost effective. It would dry up the demand. I think some type of a national advertising program, a national education program with a fairly large infusion of dollars at the Federal level is warranted. It would probably help us cure and clear up the drug problem more than anything else that we could do in this country. Another issue that is certainly affecting our young people as they try to weave their way through the environment that they are placed in is the violence factor. As many people know, the United States is currently the most violent Nation in the world for young people ages 14 through 23, 24. The second-place country is not even close to us. We lead the world in homicide rates and suicide rates for young people. Pornography has exploded. We have over 1 million porn sites on the Internet. Not 1,000. Not 100,000. We have 1 million porn sites currently on the Internet. That is unthinkable. I think when the Internet first began many years ago, no one would have assumed that this was even possible or probable. And here it is and so nine out of 10 children ages 9 through 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet. Again, that is nine out of 10 children who are ages 9 through 16 have viewed pornography. Much of that is hard core pornography, which really sears an impression into your mind that sometimes you really cannot get out of it and most of that viewing has been unintentional. It has been by accident. We have corporations such as AT&T that have been involved in hard core pornography. At one time AT&T I think was the gold standard as far as how a large corporation should be run. Yet we find some of our most reputable companies involved in this industry which yields profits of 10 to $15 billion a year. And so the profit motive certainly supersedes any national interest that they might perceive. Such words as Barbie, Disney, ESPN, at one time my name, would pull up a porn site. And so a child who innocently wants to do research or look at some information regarding their hobby will oftimes pull up a porn site, and we do not seem to be able to do anything about it. Many of us are dismayed by the way the FCC is regulating obscenity on the Nation's airwaves. They are the primary arbiter. They are the ones who are supposed to be the watchdog in this area. According to the Parents Television Council as of July 23, 2003, the FCC had not fined a single broadcast station in the United States for airing indecent material. Also they had not suspended a single license in the United States for airing indecent material. Not in the entire history of the FCC have they done anything like this, despite thousands of complaints. This is something, Mr. Speaker, that absolutely needs to change. Many of us in this body are attempting to cause the FCC to begin to take their responsibility seriously. The Department of Justice has been focusing on eliminating child pornography but has done relatively little to enforce hard core Internet obscenity laws. Of course the Department of Justice has had their hands full, particularly since 9/11. We realize that they have a very heavy caseload. But we have really petitioned the Department of Justice to get more active. In the preceding 8 years prior to 2000, practically nothing was done to enforce obscenity laws in the Department of Justice, and we feel that we have not seen a whole lot of action in the last couple of years as well. Another issue that has been a concern is that of the video game industry, eight- to 18-year-old children average spending 40 minutes per day playing video games. Again, 40 minutes a day on the average, ages 8 through 18. And video games, as most people know, have become increasingly violent. A recent video game that was displayed to Members of Congress showed stalking and killing activities that are used on training films in the military to teach people how to kill people. In this particular video game, if you were a good shot and you hit somebody in a vital spot, such as the head, blood spurted and everything happened; the reward was several frames of pornographic material. This is, as far as I am concerned, off the charts. I do not think the average adult can even conceive of some of the things that our children are seeing in terms of video games. The average player of video games is 12 years of age. The Kentucky school shooter who was very effective and killed several of his classmates had never fired a gun prior to the day that he took a gun to school, but he had been very proficient in playing video games, and he had done a lot of firing and shooting in video games which translated apparently quite well into his activities on the school ground that day. Of course much music, some television, many movies are graphic. The current content would have been impossible to present for public consumption 30 years ago or even 20 years ago. This is particularly disturbing to me because I have grandchildren ages 4 through 11. I am very concerned about the environment that they are moving into and the things that they are either advertently or inadvertently exposed to because it certainly has an impact on the way they see the world. In addition to some of these issues, I would have to say that our value system has shifted considerably. Stephen Covey wrote the book ``Seven Habits of Highly Effective People'' several years ago, and the thing that he noted was this: he said that in the first 150 years of our country's history, success was primarily defined in terms of character traits. A successful person was honest, a successful person was loyal, a successful person was hard working, kind, et cetera, generous. And then he said something happened about 50, 60 years ago as he began to survey the literature of our Nation as it had to do with the issue of success, he noticed that success began to be defined more and more in terms of material possessions. A successful person was no longer one who had good character; a successful person was one who had money; a successful person was one who had power; a successful person was one who had celebrity. And so today we find that many people who are labeled successful are really not people of character. They are people who have material wealth, celebrity, publicity, and so on. So certainly our value system has switched a great deal. And we have seen this affect the business world, WorldCom, Enron. We have seen it in the press. We have seen it in athletics, in the church, and in politics; and so it is quite concerning as to what effect this has on our culture at the present time. The predominant world view that I noticed today, Mr. Speaker, is something called post-modernism, and what this states, the view of the world being post-modernism, is that there are no moral absolutes. So murder is not absolutely wrong. It depends on the circumstance. There may be cases when this is justified. Adultery is not absolutely wrong. There may be circumstances in which it is okay. Everything is relative. It may be okay to dishonor one's father and one's mother. It may be okay to steal or to lie or to do all of the things that have been taboo in societies throughout history. So we have a system of relativism that leaves our young people with nothing firm to hold on to at the present time; and particularly on the college campus we will find that post-modernism is currently almost 100 percent holding sway in terms of the minds of our young people. So, Mr. Speaker, in view of the family breakdown, the decline in our culture and shifting values, it is an extremely difficult time for our children. We are asking them to weave their way through a minefield littered with alcohol and drug abuse, harmful video games, music, TV, movies, promiscuity games, violent behavior, and broken homes; and we are asking them to do this with little or no parental guidance in an ever-shifting value system. So it is a very difficult time, and I think we need to pay very close attention to these changes in our family, to these changes in our environment. And as de Toqueville said, he made an observation that I thought was rather astute a couple hundred years ago. He said: ``America is great because America is good,'' and what he was doing was he was referring to the large number of churches, civic clubs, youth groups, and individuals who reach out and help others. This was somewhat unique to the United States at that time that we would help those who were less able to help themselves, and we had all of the different groups who were reaching out, and he had not noticed that in Europe. He said this is really the key to America's greatness. So he was referring to the inherent decency of the American people. He was referring to the strong moral and spiritual underpinning of the Nation. He was referring to the basic American ethic: ``Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.'' So I think the important thing to remember, that these observations were made 200 years ago, and I suppose the corollary to his observation would be this: if America is no longer good, then America may no longer be great. I am not one who believes that we are not a great country, and I believe there is a tremendous reservoir of innate goodness in our country today. But by the same token, I think it is important to point out that some of the standards and some of the values that have made us great have slipped considerably. So one may say, what can be done? This has been a discouraging picture that I have painted, and sometimes I even hesitate to do this, but I think it is something that we need to face, we need to talk about on this floor. So some of the things that can be done in this body and throughout our culture are as follows: number one, we can do some things to provide mentoring for some of our young children, and mentoring is simply providing an adult who cares about the lives of young persons. So many of our young kids today do not have anyone who cares for them unconditionally and to have someone who is not a father, not a mother, not a preacher, not a teacher, no one who has an ax to grind, is paid to do so, to have a person who is a mentor, who is an adult who cares enough about someone, to show up and say I care about you unconditionally, and whatever happens, I am here for you. It is very powerful in the life of a young person. A mentor is one who affirms, who says I believe in you, I know you can do it. I think that this is something that you are capable of. I see great promise in you. And I saw that in athletics, that if they affirmed a young person, they ofttimes became that which they did not even know they could be; and on other hand if they did not affirm them, if they beat them down, if they are negative, which so many of our kids experience all the time, it would not be long before that player played down to that level, and before long he would quit. And of course a mentor also provides a vision. So many of our young people simply have no vision of what they could be, that they could go on to college, that they could do something in electronics, that they have musical ability. So a mentor is one who guides them in those directions. Mentoring reduces dropout rates, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, violence. And the President has proposed $150 million annually over the next 3 years for mentoring initiatives. Actually, the funding will be about half of that, but it is still much better than we had in the past. The National Mentoring Partnership says that roughly 18 million children in the United States today are badly in need of a mentor, and yet at the present time we have roughly 2 million who are being mentors. Roughly one out of every 10 has a mentor. So I think one thing that could greatly change the shape of our Nation and our future would be to provide a much more systematic mentoring program, and I think the President is behind that. I think some legislation can help. The Internet Gambling Bill, H.R. 2143, is something that I think could be very beneficial. We have a great many young people, particularly college students, who are inundated with credit cards. And anymore all one has to do to build a huge gambling debt is to have a credit card and a computer. So we would like to shut this practice down because some kids run up a 10, 15, $20,000 gambling debt in a matter of days; and of course their future and their credit rating is ruined. So we feel that this would be an important bill. H.R. 669, Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003, sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), of which I am a cosponsor, prevents marketing extremely graphic violent video games to children. We think this would be a step in the right direction; but, again, we would worry about the courts declaring it unconstitutional. So I think we need a fundamental shift in court decisions regarding the first amendment. I am not a constitutional expert and do not pretend to be so, but I would like to point out some court cases that have certainly shaped the course of our Nation's history and its future. In 1996 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act that made it illegal to send indecent material to children via the Internet; but in June of 1997, the Supreme Court overturned portions of the law and, get this, said in the opinion: ``Indecent material is protected by first amendment.'' So this was one of the first times, I believe, that the Supreme Court said that indecent material is okay. The first amendment gives one the ability to do that, and we are not going to stand in the way of people sending indecent material to children over the Internet. That was a landmark case. In 1996 also, the Child Pornography Prevention Act outlawed child pornography, including visual depictions that appeared to be of a minor. So the issue at hand was this: You cannot have an actual minor involved in the production of child pornography, but if you use computer-generated images, which you can not tell whether they are real or not real, then that type of child pornography is apparently okay, according to this particular Supreme Court decision. In October 1998 the Children On-Line Protection Act was signed into law to prohibit the communication of harmful material to children on publicly accessible web sites. The Supreme Court's refusal to rule on the 1988 law prevented the law from being enacted, so we were not able to protect children who were involved in receiving harmful material on publicly accessible web sites. The 106th Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act to require schools and libraries that receive Federal funds to use Internet filtering to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet. In May 2002 a Federal Court declared the law unconstitutional. What we have here is free speech is protected for pornographers and, in some case pedophiles, while women and children are attacked. Roughly 80 to 90 percent of pedophiles and rapists report using pornography, oft times before they commit an event. So, some people say, well, what is the big deal? Pornography is harmless. It does not really have any victim. Yet, if you think about it, we spend billions of dollars in this country on commercials, and if those commercials did not change behavior, if what you see and what you hear and what you read does not change your behavior, then we are spending billions of dollars unnecessarily. So, obviously, the pornography industry does have a tremendous impact on behavior and the environments that our young people exist in. I would also point out that there have been some issues that have to do with prayer that are somewhat concerning in our schools. In 1962 the Supreme Court ruled the following prayer unconstitutional. This was the landmark decision. This was the particular prayer: ``Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our teachers and our country.'' It seemed relatively innocuous and relatively simple, but that prayer was ruled unconstitutional because of separation of church and state. It would appear that many court rulings regarding separation of church and state have ranged far afield from the intent of our framers of the Constitution. The First Amendment states, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Of course, most everyone realizes where that came from, the Constitution, was that this country was founded by people who were attempting to escape from a religious state, the Church of England, so they did not want a government-sponsored religion which took over the country. But I think that in the interpretations that we have seen in the courts, we have ranged far afield from what the Constitution actually intended. The framers of the Constitution were assumed to be hostile to expressions of faith in the recent interpretations of the court that we have seen. Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the framers of the Constitution, said this: ``We have been assured, sir,'' and this is his quote, ``In the sacred writings, that except the Lord build a house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in the political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests. Our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down future ages. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.'' What he was talking about was in this body, on this floor, he was saying we should have a prayer at the start of business every day. This is one of the framers of the Constitution. So at this point, both the House and the Senate begin their business daily with a prayer, and yet we have moved so far as a Nation away from what Franklin originally intended. George Washington said this: ``The propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.'' In assessing the writings of some of the Founding Fathers, David Barton, an historian, said this: ``Franklin had warned that forgetting God and imagining that we no longer needed his concurring aid would result in internal disputes, the decay of the Nation's prestige and reputation and a diminished national success. Washington had warned that if religious principles were excluded, the Nation's morality and political prosperity would suffer. Yet despite such clear words in cases beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court offered rulings which eventually divorced the Nation, its schools and its public affairs from more than three centuries of its heritage. America is now learning exponentially what both Washington and Franklin knew to be true. We are suffering in the very areas they predicted.'' I think it is important that the Founding Fathers really did not intend for the pendulum to swing as far as it has. I think that they obviously acknowledged the importance of issues of faith, and this was the foundation upon which the Nation was built. There are some other decisions that I think are worth looking at. In 1992 a Supreme Court decision declared an invocation and benediction at a graduation ceremony constitutional, so a preacher, a rabbi, a Muslim cleric, cannot at a graduation exercise lead any type of prayer. That was decided in 1992. The court also has held more recently a minute of silence in school is unconstitutional, so at the beginning of the classroom day it is not constitutional for a minute of silence to be held in which a child may choose to pray in his own way. He may look out the window, he may think about his history lesson, but it is just a minute of silence. There is no formal, organized prayer, no one is proselytizing, and yet that has become unconstitutional. Then this, one of the strangest rulings that I heard of, was the court ruled that a student-led prayer at a football game was unconstitutional. This is not inside the school building, it is not a school administrator, it is not a teacher; this was a prayer that was chosen to be selected by the students, and a student was going to lead the prayer. Yet this was unconstitutional because the football players might have to listen to it and might be offended, I guess. Of course, most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the term ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance, and that will now be heard by the Supreme Court, probably within the next few months, and it appears that those are there is a very strong probability that this may be a four-to-four deadlock, which means that the Ninth Circuit Court will be upheld and that will become the law of the land, at least for that part of the country. Certainly I am not advocating here that teachers or administrators be allowed to proselytize in the schools. I do not think that would be appropriate. I do not think that is intended. But it does seem that we have come a long, long ways from where the framers of the Constitution originally intended us to go. The Constitution is increasingly being interpreted as a ``living document.'' That sounds really good, does it not, because it is kind of progressive. It sounds like we are forward-thinking and the Constitution is not a dead piece of legislation, but it is currently alive and it is being changed and it is moving ahead. Yet the important thing to realize is that the Constitution is often not interpreted as it was written, but rather as justices believe that it should be. Look at the legal decisions increasingly coming down, based not upon what the law states, but based upon the personal ideology of the jurists. The Constitution is not based upon absolute principles, but rather the shifting sands of relativism. This philosophical bent of the Supreme Court justices and District Court justices determines the course of the Nation. Over the last 20 or 30 years we have seen the Nation slowly but surely driven in certain directions that many people would believe is not what the framers of the Constitution intended. That, Mr. Speaker, is why the activities in the other body regarding the makeup of the courts and the court appointees is becoming such an important issue, because, within the next 1 or 2 or 3 years, the shape of the Supreme Court certainly will be determined, and, with it, the direction that our Nation proceeds over the next 15, 20, 30 years I think will largely be decided. The willingness of Congress to focus upon the pernicious influences impacting our children, the willingness of the American people to demand that those profiteering at the expense of our culture and our young people be reined in, will largely shape the future of our Nation. Terrorism is an ever-present threat. The economy is of concern. However, terrorism and economic distress will not prevail as long as our national character is sound. I would like to say that one more time. There is certainly no intent on my part to minimize the critical nature of terrorism, the crisis in the Middle East, the situation in Iraq, the difficulties with the economy, health care, Medicare, all of those types of things. Those are critical issues and they occupy almost 100 percent of this body's attention. But the reason I am here tonight is to try to point out the fact that we will handle all of those problems. None of those problems will overcome the United States if our character is sound, if our young people are nurtured in the right direction. And, therefore, something that I think is very pernicious is slipping under the radar screen and something that this Congress, this body, and the American people need to address on a consistent manner. So this struggle may present the most critical crisis facing the United States today. As Congress addresses important issues such as national defense, economy, health care, and so on, it is critical that we not lose sight of the fact that our Nation's survival is directly linked to the character of our people. I would conclude by saying this our future rests with our young people and with the soundness of their character, their willingness to sacrifice, and their spiritual grounding. And I hope that we will give adequate attention to these issues some of which can be handled through legislation, some through expenditures of money, for instance, in the trying to prevent underage drinking, some in our attention to who goes on to the courts and who does not, but above all this really rests with the American people and with their willingness to persevere. And I would like to echo what de Tocqueville said, ``America is great because America is good.'' And I think we need to maintain our vigilance that America continues to be good.

Mr. OSBORNE

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

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone that I know in this body agonizes over an additional $87 billion supplemental spending bill. No one is real happy about it. While we may disagree on some of the details, I hope that we can agree on two things. Number one, we are engaged in a conflict that we cannot afford to lose. Whatever it takes to win needs to be done. And, number two, more than ever, we need to display a unity of purpose and a common resolve in this body that we may not have seen since 9/11. Our opponents believe that persistent acts of terrorism will eventually prevail. They saw internal strife that resulted in failure in Vietnam. They saw us leave Beirut after a truck bomb destroyed a Marine barracks. They saw us relocate troops after the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. And, unfortunately, they also see partisanship, and they see discord, and they see finger-pointing on the floor of this House at a time when this country cannot afford that. And so they see us as a Nation which can be divided. If we pull out, if we back down, if we give up, if we fail to see this through, every soldier that has died in Iraq will have died in vain, and we will have sent a clear signal to terrorists everywhere that we are an easy target. We will have shown that the U.S. no longer has the national resolve demonstrated at Valley Forge, at Gettysburg, at The Argonne, and on D- Day. When the stakes are high and when the task is daunting, and this is, commitment, perseverance and unity of purpose eventually prevail. I urge approval of the supplemental, and I hope that this can be accomplished with a spirit of bipartisan cooperation that displays a united front to the world.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Smith) time.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I am relatively new to Congress. When I first came here 2\1/2\ years ago, I was surprised and somewhat disappointed by the partisanship that I encountered. I was from a competitive arena, and yet I had really never encountered anything like it. And then 9-11 came, and for 2 or 3 months I saw Congress function as it could. What we saw was unity of purpose. Welfare of the country was the primary priority. Partisanship, personal ambition was set aside. Now here we are 2 years later and it seems as though we are drifting toward and have drifted toward business as usual. We are told that this is an election year that is coming up. Partisanship is escalating and some people say, well, we really cannot get much done next year because this is going to be an election year. Yet I would submit that the threat to our Nation is just as great as before 9-11 at this time. The battle lines are more clearly drawn. The stakes are higher. And still the internal dissension intensifies. To me, this is a little bit mystifying. The great majority of people I have gotten to know, both sides of the aisle here in Congress, are genuinely good people. Yet that is really not the image that we project. Most people in my district are totally turned off by the discord they see. They do not seem to understand it; and they dismiss it as, well, that is just politics. Certainly not all Democrats are tax-and-spend liberals with no moral compass. Certainly all Republicans are not heartless pawns of big business. And yet many times that is the way we portray each other. Certainly the President of the United States has not started a war to boost his approval ratings. Those types of comments are alarming, and they are very disturbing. Unfounded congressional comments impugning motives and denigrating character only give substance to the belief we have no national resolve or unity. Where there is unity of purpose, the whole exceeds the sum of its parts. And I saw that consistently in athletics. If people were committed to a common goal, they pulled together and the dissenting factors tended to fall away. But where there is a lack of unity, the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Sometimes I feel that that is what characterizes this body as we get fragmented, as we throw rocks at each other. It is critical at this time in our Nation's history that both parties pull together, that civility is exercised. As far as I am concerned, we are at war. It is a different type of war. At a time of war we cannot afford partisan strife that weakens national resolve.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2040. As has been mentioned, this extends irrigation contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and the irrigation contractors in Nebraska and Wyoming. A proposed cooperative agreement between Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming was established in 1997. Parenthetically, I might just mention that this agreement was to provide additional water in a 50-mile stretch of Platte River in Central Nebraska. This water is to provide habitat for the whooping crane, the least tern, the piping plover and the pallid sturgeon, all of which are either endangered or threatened, according to the Endangered Species Act. However, less than 2 percent of the whooping crane population ever visits the Platte River during their migration. As a matter of fact, many years the whooping crane is not seen at all on the Platte River. The least tern and the piping plover do not seem to nest in this area of the river, and the pallet sturgeon is located 150 miles away in the Missouri River. Therefore, there is considerable confusion as to whether this is really critical habitat. Therefore, the cooperative agreement, which has been formed to preserve water for critical habitat, is under study. We currently have a National Academy of Sciences study, which you have graciously encouraged and we appreciate that. Until this study is completed, the cooperative agreement really cannot move forward. Therefore, we are requesting this 2-year extension. Because of the delays in finalizing the cooperative agreement, it is necessary to extend existing irrigation contracts until such time as the cooperative agreement is finalized. So I urge passage of 2040. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their support and urge passage.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I spent roughly 40 years working with young people, and over those 40 years there was a growing concern about drug abuse. Drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, heroin, methamphetamines were unheard of in 1960 and became more and more prevalent as those 40 years moved forward. My observation was the primary drug problem that we had with young people really revolved around alcohol. Last week the National Academy of Science came out with a report on underage drinking that I think underscored this observation. The findings were as follows: Number one, underage drinking results in $53 billion of costs to the Nation annually; $19 billion of this is for alcohol-related traffic accidents; 2,339 15- to 20-year-olds were killed in 2000 by alcohol- related traffic accidents. Number two, availability apparently is no problem. Ninety percent of twelfth graders say obtaining alcohol is easy. Fifty percent of seniors drink each month, and 25 percent of those drink heavily. Third, underage drinkers drink more than adults do. The report indicates that underage drinkers consume nearly twice as much alcohol on each occasion than adults. In other words, underage drinkers are more likely to drink to get drunk than adults. Number four, underage drinking is more addictive. Due to psychological and physiological immaturity, alcohol dependency progresses much more rapidly in young people. Sometimes it progresses in a matter of weeks or months, whereas in most adults the disease may progress over a period of years. It is estimated that there are 3 million teenage alcoholics in our country today, and those that are addicted to other drugs, it could be a fraction of that 3 million, and yet that gets most of the attention. Number five, the average age of the first drink is decreasing. At the present time the first age of drink is about 14 on the average. Twenty percent of eighth graders use alcohol frequently. Six, the side effects of adolescent drinking are devastating. Underage drinking leads to violence, suicide, academic failure, date rape, unwanted pregnancy, it can impede brain development, and it is a gateway to other illegal drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin, because all of those drugs usually do not start with the drug itself but rather alcohol consumption. Number seven, a point that I would like to bring out is why has underage drinking become such a huge problem. I would say parental factors have been a major issue. Many parents subscribe to the myth, which is false, that if a young person is using alcohol then they will not use other drugs, when the reverse is absolutely the fact. If you start using alcohol early, you are more apt to be addicted to all kinds of other drugs as well. Oftentimes parents will purchase alcohol for children. And then, of course, there is the issue of lack of parental involvement. A recent study indicated that parents today spend 40 percent less time with their children than they did a generation ago, and of course that leads to some problems in the alcohol area. Then of course there has been a problem with media influence. Young people are often targeted by alcohol commercials, and those of you who may watch NCAA football this next Saturday will undoubtedly come across a number of beer commercials, and these commercials will not show you an overweight 50-year-old or an automobile accident or somebody whose wife walked out on him. Rather, they will be young, they will be attractive, they will be athletic and they will be having a good time. And so NCAA sports, which should be aimed at improving things for young people, is, I think, in this case part of the problem. Also, much music targeted to young people glamorizes alcohol. So some of the solutions provided by this report I think are worth noting. I think we need to reallocate government resources. Twenty-five times more money is spent on preventing illegal drug use than preventing illegal drinking by young people, and yet if we can keep people from drinking, particularly at an early age, we are going to do a tremendous amount to cut down use of other hard drugs, and our money would be much better spent in that regard. We need to hold alcohol advertisers accountable for targeting young people. There is no question that many of their advertisements are aimed directly at people, and some of those are underage drinkers. We need to hold the recording industry, the motion picture industry and the television industry accountable for ratings. Many of these ratings are rated G or PG and have heavy alcohol content in them. We need to enforce regulations banning the sale of liquor to underage drinkers. Many times people who violate these rules just get a slap on the wrist. It has been proposed, also, by the NAS study that we raise the excise tax on alcohol to promote a campaign to reduce underage drinking, much as we have to reduce smoking. So all of these things I think are worth considering, and I certainly urge the membership to take a hard look at the NAS report.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003'' to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program. 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 modifies the current grandfather provisions that are tied to the definition of eligibility that guarantee funding for current grantees to a provision giving all current grantees a priority for continued funding based on their ability to meet grantee determined goals. This bill promotes increased accountability by ensuring that states are monitoring local grantees to ensure services are being provided in the most efficient manner and that services are reaching 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, life skills training, and youth crime prevention. Finally, the bill continues the CSBG grants and discretionary programs at current authorization levels and extends them through FY 2009. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to back this important legislation that supports improved services for low-income individuals and families.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, during the vote on Representative Tom Davis's amendment to the fiscal year 2004 D.C. Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2765, I mistakenly voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``no.'' At the time, I was involved in a conference call with constituents. I left the floor after voting on the Davis amendment to participate in the call believing that I had voted in opposition to the Davis amendment. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents who are opposed to voucher proposals. I fully intended to continue my position of opposing all school voucher proposals. I sincerely regret my error. I did vote in favor of the Norton amendment to strike funding for this voucher proposal. My vote on the Norton amendment is a true indication of my position on this issue. While I understand the strong feelings behind the prospect of providing voucher to children in the District of Columbia, I have had a longstanding and well-known position of opposing Federal funding for school vouchers. I would much rather see additional investments made in the D.C. public school system than to have funds used in private schools. The D.C. voucher proposal will provide options for a very small fraction of children in the District of Columbia public school system. But every child in the District of Columbia deserves a high- quality education, not just a few thousand. I strongly believe that a high quality education system will only be possible through additional investments to the public school system, rather than by using public funds for private schools.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to raise an issue that I know many of my colleagues have been very concerned about, and that is additional funding for AmeriCorps. Currently, AmeriCorps is facing a very severe funding crisis. Local programs around the country are facing severe cuts. Thousands of social service organizations across the country depend on AmeriCorps for manpower and service for constituents. If we do nothing, many of these programs won't be able to survive or make up the difference in funding in another way. This means that fewer meals will be delivered to the elderly and fewer children will be mentored. When national AmeriCorps officials announced a major cut last month in grants for volunteer positions, leaders of hundreds of volunteer programs across the country warned they will have to reduce operations or shut down. These programs and the people they serve should not be made to suffer because of problems in Washington that could be addressed by short-term solutions, such as agreeing to $100 million in supplemental funding for AmeriCorps. While I realize that today's bill is focused only on addressing issues facing FEMA, I did want to make sure to note that a majority of members of this House signed letters in support of additional funding for AmeriCorps. We have heard from the wonderful programs all around this country that are doing such important work. I will continue to work to see if additional funding can be provided to improve this situation which is so critical to so many non-profit programs in all of our districts.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, as I have talked to my colleagues here in the House, I have been really surprised and somewhat dismayed at the amount of misunderstanding and misinformation we have had regarding this particular bill. We have already heard some of those: We are going to dismantle Head Start. I do not think anybody on this side or the other side intends to dismantle Head Start. Everyone values Head Start. Head Start is not being transformed into a State-run program. It is not a block grant program. That is absolutely not true. So currently what we are talking about is the possibility of eight States entering a pilot program, if they so choose. Now, if all 50 States say we want to keep Head Start like it is, they can keep the program in all 50 States like it is. So the maximum would be eight States in a pilot program, 42 States in a similar program that we have had previously. So it is entirely voluntary. Pilot States must increase spending for early learning and not decrease it, so it does not take money from Head Start. I have often heard, as I talk to people around the floor here, Well, we are afraid that this is going to take money away from Head Start. This is not structured in this way. Actually, the State must increase its spending; no Head Start dollars will be transferred to the State. This will create a seamless, coordinated early learning program in pilot programs instead of a two-track system. Right now, we have Head Start in most States and we have State-run early learning programs, and they exist side-by-side. There is no coordination. There is no commonality of standards. We think this is wasteful and inefficient. So what we are talking about is a program that will serve more children and will have higher standards, not lower. Also, the Castle bill increases Head Start funding, as we have said previously, by $202 million, up to $6.9 billion, which, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) said, has more than doubled since 1995. It raises the standards for teacher qualifications. It does not lower standards at all. Head Start continues to be administered by Health and Human Services. It not being transferred to another department. Again, that is a myth that has been out there for some reason. Health and nutrition programs remain in place. They will not be changed at all. Underachieving Head Start programs receive additional funds. This is one thing I think we really need to look at and think about. The academic content of Head Start is strengthened while maintaining important socialization components. So as has been stated earlier, there is an emphasis on pre-mathematics, which currently is not something that happens in most Head Start programs. There is also an emphasis on pre-science, which again is not emphasized in Head Start programs currently; also in pre-reading. Currently, most Head Start programs say all you have to do is be able to recognize 10 letters of the alphabet. Well, by the time you are four years old, you had better know the whole alphabet. So we think that we can make considerable improvements. What we would like to emphasize here is that according to the Family and Child Experience Survey, the average child entering Head Start in terms of school readiness ranks in the 21st percentile. Two years later, $6,500 a year later, that child leaves Head Start at the 24th percentile, which is hardly statistically significant. We cannot afford to do this. So if you start in the lower one-fourth of readiness and you end Head Start in the lower one-fourth, by the age of 16, you are probably still in the lower one-fourth, because where you start is usually where you finish. Now, that is critical. So something needs to be done to address this problem. So that is all we are saying. Let us make some changes here. This is not a perfect program, but it is a good program, and we are trying to make it better. So we hope that people will consider and will understand the bill better. We think if they understand it, they will vote for it.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with all those who have spoken tonight that Head Start is an excellent program. It is a necessary program. Yet many people feel that no changes are needed to the program. I guess if you put it in any context, let us say you ran a business for 35 years, a football team for 35 years, a school for 35 years, and you said over and over again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it and you stayed with a pat hand, my feeling is you would drift toward mediocrity. There is no organization that can stay the same year after year after year. I think there are a couple of things that really can be fixed. I think there are some things that need to be done here. The first question is, does Head Start do what it is designed to do, which is to get kids ready to go to school? As we have mentioned earlier tonight, the Family and Child Experience Survey, which is the best measure I know of of school readiness, says this. They said that the average student entering Head Start is at the 21st percentile in terms of readiness to go to school. And then 2 years later, $6,500 a year, $13,000 later, we see those same students ranking at the 24th percentile, a gain of 3 percent in 2 years. I think that is unsatisfactory. I do not think we are doing the right thing by our children. When they enter Head Start, they are in the bottom fourth of school readiness, when they leave Head Start they are in the bottom fourth, and the best statistical prediction we can make is that at age 16, they are still going to be in the bottom fourth. This is something that I think needs to be rectified. As we have mentioned, the Castle bill does introduce some academic rigor to Head Start. I think this is critical. I think this change needs to be made. Pre-math, pre-science, ramp up the reading programs. We think students ought to be somewhere around the 40th percentile on average after leaving Head Start instead of the 24th percentile. I think that can be done. I think that is doable. Secondly, there are 1.5 million children eligible for Head Start; 900,000 are in Head Start and there are 600,000 left over. Of that 600,000, some are in State programs, and we have State programs here and we have Head Start and then we have got a whole bunch in the middle that are falling through the cracks. They are not in anything. That is why we think the demonstration program is critical, because we need to have a more seamless program where those kids are not falling through the cracks, where we have some type of a comprehensive plan as to how we are going to take care of all of them. I think that is going to be important. The last thing I will mention, that in fact we might think about a little bit, is one of the real strengths of Head Start is we involve the parents. We are expecting now that there is a transition from Head Start to the elementary school where those kids' parents stay with the student. That is something that we have incorporated in this bill which we think is very important.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), and also the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his thoughtful amendment. I think his amendment does represent some improvement. I would like to just briefly discuss eight State demonstration programs. That seems to be the crux of the problem right now. I can point out that no State has to join the demonstration program. This is totally optional. We may have all 50 States say, Let's keep the thing like it is. I do not believe any State will join unless it feels it can actually better serve children. So what is the fear? Why are we concerned about this? Is it the argument of a camel's nose under the tent, maybe it will work and then it might spread? I do not think this is a dangerous issue at all. So it only makes sense that two programs that are now existing side by side, a State program and Head Start, can be better coordinated, can serve more children, and can do a better job than what we are doing at the present time. So I recommend that we defeat the substitute and pass the Head Start reauthorization.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I think ultimately each of us has to be responsible to our constituents, and what I hear from Nebraska seniors contacting me is much more concern about high prescription drug prices than safety issues. Many of those Nebraskans are already getting their prescription drugs from Canada, and if drug prices continue to escalate as they have been and as they will continue to do, the $400 billion prescription drug benefit passed by the House will be insufficient. I think we all know that intuitively, and I think OMB knows that empirically. So I see that the only solution, that I can think of at least, is holding drug prices down through competition in the free market, which I think most of us believe in. We import meat, fruit, wine, cheeses for direct consumption without undue alarm about safety. Americans take millions of dollars of imported prescription drugs each year, and yet no deaths or significant problems have occurred. I have a lot of confidence in this country. I believe we can have cheaper drugs and also have the intelligence and technology to have safe drugs.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I commend the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for their hard work on this legislation. This important spending bill provides critical funding for state and local law enforcement's crime fighting initiatives. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 2799 provides $500 million for the Byrne formula grant program. Byrne formula grants have long proven to be an important aid to law enforcement agencies and I know that Nebraska law enforcement officials have put this funding to good use. In Nebraska, these funds support the multi-jurisdictional drug task forces that are invaluable in the state's efforts to combat the influx of methamphetamine (meth) in our communities. In addition, Byrne grants have enabled effective inter-agency and multi-jurisdiction cooperation, information sharing, and technology improvements. According to the Nebraska Clandestine Lab Team, the number of methamphetamine labs busted in the state increased from 18 in 1998 to almost 250 last year. I cannot overstate the negative impact this dangerous drug is having on rural communities in my district. Given the vital role Byrne grants play in helping law enforcement officials fight meth production, I appreciate the committee's commitment to this important program. As a Member of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I strongly support the $60 million in funding for the Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up program included in H.R. 2799. This legislation sends a strong message to our local law enforcement agencies that the federal government is a partner in fighting the meth scourge in our communities. Finally, I want to thank the committee for their commitment to the Nebraska State Patrol to carry out their comprehensive strategy for combating methamphetamine in Nebraska. These additional resources will enhance the efforts already in place in Nebraska to address the presence of clandestine labs, distribution of methamphetamine and the need for treatment. I congratulate the Committee on bringing this legislation to the floor today, and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2799.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that appropriate committees in the House and the other body are investigating those issues of concern to the previous speaker. If those committees do not appropriately handle the issue, then I am certain that an independent investigative commission would be in order. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about Head Start. This week it is scheduled to be reauthorized on the House floor. Currently, there is much confusion about Head Start and its reauthorization. The facts are these: number one, Head Start serves approximately 1 million children. Secondly, state-run early learning programs service another 1 million eligible preschool children. That is 2 million out of 3 million, so that means 1 million essentially are falling through the cracks. Of course, this is of great concern because where you start out in the learning curve usually signifies where you are going to end up. So we are serving only two-thirds of those children who are eligible. Head Start is effective in social development, language proficiency, and some early learning skills and is very worthwhile. I think most people that know anything about Head Start certainly advocate the program and feel it is something that we really need to continue to reauthorize. But I think it is important also to realize that Head Start children enter the program at the 21st percentile of school readiness. They leave the program at the 24th percentile of school readiness. So after 2 years, $6,500-per-year education, they are improving roughly 3 percent. Certainly that can be improved. That is essentially one thing that will be addressed in this reauthorization. Reauthorization does this: it certainly strengthens the present Head Start programs and increases funding by $202 million to $6.9 billion. So there is a funding increase. It improves teacher qualification requirements. It does not weaken the teacher qualification in any way. It keeps Head Start under Health and Human Services. There has been a misperception that it is being moved to another Department. That is not true. It preserves the current health and nutrition programs. It does not change them at all. And provides extra funding for underachieving programs. These are all things that have been similar in the past. There are three significant changes that I think are worthy of note: number one, the reauthorization strengthens the academic components of curriculum and improves school readiness, so such things as vocabulary, early reading, learning letters, learning numbers will be ramped up; and we hope that instead of ending up at the 24th percentile of school readiness, they might end up at the 35th or the 40th or the 45th percentile. This definitely needs to be improved and it will be. Secondly, this reauthorization provides an optional eight-State pilot program, so 42 States will remain the same and only eight States who choose to do so will enter into this pilot program. What this does, it provides a seamless program that coordinates State standards for early childhood education with Head Start so we do not have two programs on the same track existing side by side which is very expensive and furthermore causes a lot of children to fall through the cracks. We will serve more kids. Then lastly, it encourages parental involvement to transition from Head Start to elementary school. One of the great things about Head Start right now is that parents are involved with children in Head Start. Traditionally and typically when kids go on to elementary school, the parents drop out of the picture. And so in the reauthorization, we are trying to make sure that parents stay involved with their children from Head Start on into elementary school, and this certainly is one of the things that can tremendously benefit children in this program. We encourage our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this reauthorization. This is an important program. I believe that the reauthorization strengthens the Head Start program. We urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King amendment. Actually, there are two conflicting rulings right now that govern flows, and so it is not just one. The idea here is that we want high flows in the river in the spring, which will flood thousands of acres of farmland, and very low flows in the summer, which prevent any kind of navigation. The reason to do this is so the piping plover will build their nests high up on the banks of the river and will not get flooded out. The best way to handle this is to manually move the nests up the bank. They do not have to flood thousands of acres. They do not have to shut off the barge traffic. That is the simple way. It is the logical way to do it. And yet we are trying to mandate this thing by managing the river all because the piping plover and the least tern are endangered species or threatened species. So we think that this whole thing can be fixed, and we support the amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. I feel a little bit, like in my previous profession, in the middle of a major conflict here. I appreciate the intent of the gentleman on his amendment, and I also understand some of the legal arguments. I would like to just point out a couple of things here that have not been mentioned heretofore. One is that there are over 400,000 acres of private lands that are currently blocked by the roadless rule. These are private landowners who have no access to their land. The reason is, what happened primarily was much of that forest that is affected by the roadless rule was not mapped. Nobody knew when they designated it that there were private lands in there. That is not right. That is a problem. If my colleagues talk to the people who are in the field, the Forest Service field managers, they say the roadless rule affects their ability to maintain ecosystems, watersheds, protect species, and protect human lives and property. There has been quite a bit mentioned tonight about the fact that there are fewer fires in roadless areas. Yet the largest fire in the history of Colorado was the Hayman fire. That burned primarily through roadless areas; and so when we do have a fire in a roadless area, there is very little that we can do to slow it down. So I think it makes sense. It is only logical that if the Forest Service feels that they need more access and if firefighters say they need more access and if landowners say that they need more access, that we should listen to them. It is only logical, and so I certainly support defeat of the amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend my support for the 2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Much has been said today by those in opposition to the bill regarding the lack of aid to social projects and education, and the reason I wanted to come down here today is to call special attention to one program that has been given significant increases, and that has to do with mentoring. Those dollars have gone from practically zero a year ago to a significant amount. As a matter of fact, those mentoring programs have been funded by an increase of roughly 300 percent this year. This is very important. The reason I think this is important is to realize that over the last 10 years, we have spent an additional $80 billion on education. That is both Republicans and Democrats. We have increased it $80 billion. We have seen no increase in the level of test scores, we have seen no improvement in drop-out rates. So just spending large amounts of money does not fix the problem. One of the things that has happened here is we have seen a tremendous increase in social pathology. We have more and more kids who go to school each day who are so troubled by their environment and their home life that they cannot really learn anything because they cannot focus. So mentoring is one thing that does work. There are statistics and research that indicates this, that mentoring significantly reduces dropout rates, cuts drug abuse by roughly 50 percent, absenteeism from school by roughly 50 percent, teenage pregnancy by 30, 40 percent, violent behavior by 30 percent. It improves graduation rates, personal hygiene, and relationships with peers and with parents. It costs about $300 to $500 a year to run a good mentoring program per student. It costs about $30,000 a year to lock somebody up. Somebody addicted to meth will cost probably roughly $50,000 to $100,000 for a community, because they are going to commit 60 crimes a year, on the average. So we feel that this is very cost effective. This money will come back to society many times over. So I would like to thank the President for his interest, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his interest in mentoring, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his help, and particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), because as I have found the chairman, he has been very fair. He has listened very carefully. He does care about children. He cares about education. He has a difficult balancing act to perform and has done it, I think, with great effectiveness. I just wanted to come down here and thank the chairman. I appreciate it.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and also the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their work on this bill. I would like to remind the gentleman who just spoke that frequently what is authorized and what is appropriated is not the same. I certainly share many of his sentiments, but I do believe that H.R. 2211 is an important bill because I spent 5 years teaching in a teachers college, 3 years when I was a young man in my twenties, and 2 years more recently at an unspecified age. And I was often struck by the disconnect between the theory of teaching presented in the teachers college and the practical aspects of teaching in the classroom. As a result, because of this disconnect, we find a lot of young teachers going into the classroom unprepared and they leave early, and this is very expensive to the whole system. So H.R. 2211 requires teachers colleges to work together with school districts so education theory and actual classroom teaching experience are aligned. I think this is critical because so often what happens is the teachers college kind of drifts off into a never-never-land of theory and they are really not rooted in actual experience. So I think this is a critical change. And I think this will encourage higher retention rates. In addition, as has been pointed out previously, H.R. 2211 ensures that teacher preparation is thorough and that teachers have sufficient knowledge and skills to truly meet the highly qualified standards set forth in No Child Left Behind. Again, my experience has been that too often teachers have not adequately been assessed in terms of their knowledge, their skill; and mediocrity has often been the norm, and that is tragic in a profession as important as this. So H.R. 2211 raises the bar for teacher preparation. I think it is a good bill, and I urge its support; and I thank those who have worked so hard to bring it to fruition.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, rural health care is struggling. The hospitals are closing and many doctors are leaving. If you are in a small community and the doctor leaves or the hospital closes, the whole community begins to unravel. H.R. 1 addresses the troubles that we see currently in rural health care. Number one, it lowers the labor share of the wage index for rural hospitals. This allows them to be more competitive with urban areas in terms of salary scale. Number two, H.R. 1 increases Medicare reimbursement for rural doctors. Sixty percent of the patient load in my district and many other rural districts are Medicare patients. Doctors simply cannot afford to treat Medicare patient loads of this size because on many Medicare patients they lose money. As a result, they cut back Medicare patients or sometimes leave the area. Thirdly, H.R. 1 provides a full and permanent equalization of Medicare payments to rural hospitals. An appendectomy is not cheaper in a small hospital than in a large urban hospital. In some cases it is actually more expensive. Also, H.R. 1 provides additional home health care payments and provides provision for rural ambulance. Mr. Speaker, the reason I want to come to the floor tonight is simply to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for all that he has done for rural health care. This is probably, as far as I am concerned, the most important part of the bill. I would also like to say I represent a rural area. Many retirees in my area live on fixed incomes. Most of these people are making 15, $20,000 a year. Most of them are spending 30, 40, 50 percent of their income on prescription drugs. And so the number one concern that I see in rural America is the prescription drug bill. This bill offers considerable help to these people. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and also the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I urge the passage of H.R. 1.