Tom Osborne

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 442) supporting responsible fatherhood and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the upcoming celebration of Father's Day this Sunday, June 16, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of this resolution before us on the importance of fatherhood in this country. H.R. 442, introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), urges all Americans to support responsible fatherhood and to encourage greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day. Over 36 years in my last profession, I worked with a great many young men who were fatherless. I saw directly the results of that fatherlessness, because if your dad does not care enough to stick around sometimes, even to see what you look like, there is a void in your life and sometimes you try to fill that void with all the wrong things. The number of children living in households without fathers has tripled over the last 40 years from just over 5 million in 1960 to almost 18 million today, which represents an increase of 350 percent. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 24 million children live without their biological fathers at the present time. Nearly one- half of our children will live at least part of their childhood without a father. The problems associated with fatherlessness are far-reaching. The National Fatherhood Initiative cites numerous studies as it relates the following: a child living in a fatherless home is five times more likely to live in poverty than one who lives in a home with a father. There is a much higher incidence of teenage pregnancy, suicide rates are much higher, they are two to three times more likely to commit a crime, much more likely to drop out of school, much more likely to get involved with drugs and alcohol, and I think, most importantly, and something that a lot of people miss, a fatherless daughter suffers just as much or more than a fatherless young man. It would appear that daughters are much more likely to be abused or assaulted if they do not have a father. A father acts as a protector for his daughter. We need fathers to be active in their children's lives to instill values and act as role models. Fathers have a unique role to play in their children's lives to provide affirmation, affection and advice. We have had a lot of conversation over the last several months about heroes. We hear the term quite often. I would like to point out another aspect, which I think has to do with persons being a hero. Sometimes it is a person that gets up every morning and goes to work. It is a person who honors their marriage vows. It is a person who honors his commitment to his children. So, sometimes heroism is not something that is done in a moment of great danger, but it is something that is acted out on the stage of life over a long period of time. We also would like to mention an anecdote here, which I think is accurate. This was kind of interesting. There was a chaplain who worked in a prison for men, and on Mother's Day the chaplain was asked by one of the inmates to get a card for Mother's Day. A greeting card company offered to provide several boxes of cards. So the word got around and nearly all of the inmates picked up a card and sent it to their mother on Mother's Day. So they thought they would repeat the process on Father's Day. Father's Day came, they had a box of cards, and, strangely enough, according to this story, not one single inmate picked up a card to send to his father. The point was that probably in almost every case the father was absent, the father had abrogated his responsibility. So I think on this particular occasion, when we look at our Nation, when we look at our Nation's future, if I could really ask for one thing, if I had one wish that could be granted, it would be that our fathers would fulfill their responsibility, that our fathers would be honored truly on Father's Day, because almost all of the social ills that we are looking at in our country today and all of the difficult things our young people are looking at really go back to the fact that our families are not intact, and particularly our fathers are not doing their job. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity.

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. 442.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, we hear over and over again how the repeal of the death tax is another tax break for the exceptionally wealthy. This does not reflect my personal experience. I have been privileged to know a few very wealthy people and at no time have I ever heard from any of those people any discussion about the death tax. The reason for this is that nearly all of them have foundations, they have trusts, they have offshore investments, and none of them will leave money to the government in the form of inheritance tax. The segment of the population that is affected most by the death tax consists of those individuals who have a single fixed asset that has appreciated significantly over time. In my district, which is largely rural, many small businesses, ranches and farms fit in this category. The farmer who bought land at $100 an acre 40 years ago that is worth $2,500 an acre today and the rancher who purchased grazing land at $20 an acre 50 years ago that is currently valued at $300 an acre would be examples. Nearly all of the profits from those farms and ranches have been put back into the property. Most farmers and ranchers are land- rich but cash-poor. Yesterday I spoke with a cattle feeder who bought cattle from 100 ranch families in the Sandhills of Nebraska. I asked him what his number one concern was. He said that it was the death tax. He said that six of those 100 ranches were sold last year because the heirs could not pay the death tax. Most of those farms and ranches are sold to wealthy absentee landlords. Ted Turner is currently the largest landowner in Nebraska. Ted Turner's property will not be subject to inheritance tax upon his death. This process takes wealth and population from rural areas. Currently the death tax nets slightly more than 1 percent of total government tax revenue, yet it costs almost one-third of every dollar recovered just to collect the tax. The net effect to the economy is negative when one considers lost jobs, lost productivity and loss of local control of businesses, farms and ranches. I urge permanent repeal of the death tax.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The reason I do this is that I, along with other members of the Committee on Agriculture, spent time in Colombia in January. We spent quite a bit of time with President Pastrana. We spent quite a bit of time with their ambassador. I do not believe that a lot of people in the United States really fully realize the situation there. At the present time, the guerrillas and the paramilitary forces control most of the firepower and control most of the money in the country. And so we are concerned about the fact that the government in Colombia is not providing enough aid to the military. The reason is that most of the money is in the hands of the guerrillas. At the present time there are 600,000 acres of coca plants in Colombia. Out of that 600,000 acres of coca plants, 90 percent of the cocaine coming into the United States comes from those fields. The only way presently that anyone down there knows to control the problem is to bring in gunships, helicopters, which hover over those fields and protect the spray planes that then come in and spray the coca. Without those gunships and without that military aid, they have no chance, because they do not have enough military help and they do not have enough financing to battle this issue. I certainly agree with one of the previous speakers when that person said that we need to dry up the demand. That is the number one thing that we have to do in this country. Drugs are ruining our young people and we have to fight drugs on every front. Interdiction is part of this. And so I think that we are missing the point here if we say we just do not want to help Colombia, because they have a significant problem and we are talking about fighting terrorism around the world and the people who are controlling the situation in Colombia right now are terrorists. There is no question. We talked to President Pastrana. He spent one week in the control of those terrorists and escaped miraculously through many fortunate events. Of course, since then they have had other politicians that have been captured by those terrorists and have been killed. So we went to Cartagena, which was the one city we could find in Colombia that was reasonably safe, that was reasonably under friendly control down there. So many other cities were not even safe to attempt to control at that time. That is why I oppose this amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and others on the committee for this legislation. Yesterday, a young woman who had been sexually assaulted asked me what Congress was going to do to address the problem. I mentioned my support of the Dot Kids legislation. As was made mention, Dot Kids provides a safe haven for children from Internet predators and sexually explicit material. Certainly this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, it does not address the whole problem. A few months ago my name, used as an Internet search vehicle, brought up a porn site. Children wanting to find out about their Congressman were exposed to graphic material. We have done a good job of proving the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease, and we have aggressively attacked the tobacco problem with advertising, higher taxes and legislation. The connection between pornography and sexual abuse of women and children is equally clear. Yet we have done very little until now to address the problem. Fifteen years ago, a Nebraska senator, Jim Exon, sponsored legislation to outlaw pornography on the Internet. He was laughed at at the time and the legislation went nowhere. Today, pornography is a $15 billion industry per year in the United States. It is the most lucrative endeavor on the Internet of all other projects and commercial attempts. In attempting to protect free speech, we have badly trampled the rights of women and children to be protected from exploitation and physical harm. Dot Kids is an excellent start. I urge its support. I also hope that this is just a beginning in attacking the pornography industry.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying bill. It seems to me that we often devote most of our time in this body attempting to fix that which is broken and very little time preventing damage before it occurs. The greatest cause of poverty in this Nation is fatherlessness. Children without fathers are five times more likely to live in poverty. They are five times more likely to depend on welfare. The greatest cause of dysfunction among young people is fatherlessness. Fatherless children are three times more likely to have behavioral problems, two times more likely to commit a crime, and much more likely to be involved in teen pregnancy, drugs, suicide and dropout from school. We have 18 million fatherless children in our country today. The President's welfare reform plan addresses these problems. It eliminates the higher work requirements for two-parent families. It removes a disincentive to marriage. It provides $300 million to allow States to provide marital preparation programs, to provide counseling to strengthen marriages, and to promote fatherhood programs which encourage fathers to take responsibility. This bill strengthens families and attempts to eliminate the root cause of poverty. It is proactive rather than reactive. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, recently the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and I joined to introduce the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act. Each year, hundreds of college athletes are offered illegal inducements to enter into contracts prior to the exhaustion of the athletes' eligibility by unscrupulous sports agents. Often these actions result in three major problems. Number one, the loss of the athletes' eligibility. Personally, I experienced having a player back in the 1980s who was offered some illegal inducements, lost his eligibility, and pretty much ruined his career. That same player was involved with some agents who really had given illegal inducements to several players around the country. They were eventually indicted on a number of felonies. They threatened some of the players with bodily harm. However, in the State of Nebraska, we lacked the laws to pursue these agents. Secondly, there is a financial loss to the athlete and the school when illegal agent offers are involved. Again, a personal note, I had a player back in the 1980s who thought he signed a contract for giving 3 percent of his proceeds to the agent, but somewhere buried in the contract was 13 percent. So he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fortunately, that player was able to recover more than $300,000 because the agent with which he had signed the illegal contract had previously come from the State of California, where there are laws that govern agents, and since that agent had not registered under California law, we were able to recover $300,000. However, in the State of Nebraska we could not do this because Nebraska, again, had no law that would enable us to prosecute. Recently, an agent named Tank Black was sentenced to 5 years in prison for swindling athletes for more than $12 million, and so we think this is important. It also allows the schools to file civil lawsuits against unethical agents. Thirdly, another issue that is very important, a negative perception of intercollegiate athletics often results when athletes enter into illegal contracts with agents. So the recent previous cases would involve the University of Alabama, University of Louisville, University of California, University of Utah, Texas Southern, University of Miami at Florida, University of Southern California, Tennessee, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Florida State and others, and in each one of these cases the school really did nothing illegal. It simply had some players that entered into illegal negotiations with agents, and of course, this reflected negatively on the school. Currently 17 States in our country, including my home State of Nebraska, have no regulations governing sports agents. The legislation that we are proposing provides a uniform Federal backstop that applies to all States. This bill does not supersede State law. It simply aids and abets those States that do have regulations governing sports agents. This act brings sports agents under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, which provides for a fine of $11,000 per day per event. State laws cannot cross State borders. So until all 50 States adopt uniform standards there is not uniformity in the law regulating sports agents. The Sports Agent Responsibility Act provides a separate Federal remedy for States Attorneys General to prosecute sports agents who attempt to exploit student athletes across State lines. I urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and me as we try to protect intercollegiate athletics from unscrupulous sports agents.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. I represent a rural area. We lost 1,000 farmers last year, lost 5,000 over the last 6 years, and have the three poorest counties per capita in the United States. I have not seen Scottie Pippen out there, and some of those who have received $200,000 payments broke even or lost money. We are currently in the worst year of 5 years of record low prices. The European Union supports their farmers $350 per acre, Japan well over $1,000 per acre. We provide $43 per acre, and we say that is too much. I do not understand that. I would have liked to have maybe seen some tighter payment limits, maybe more restrictive rules on packer ownership. It is easy to throw rocks and cast stones and say I do not like this or like that, but I do not think most people realize how difficult it is to coordinate all of the different agricultural regions in the country and to write a comprehensive bill. Somebody earlier complained about the process. This thing went on over 2 years, 47 hearings. It was done in the full committee. The ranking member and the chairman could not have been more fair. Everybody had their shot. There was nothing done behind closed doors. It could not have been a better process. So what the bill does is this: it eliminates emergency payments. The last 4 years we have spent $24 billion a year on agriculture with emergency payments. This bill should average $17 billion a year. That is not throwing money away, as far as I am concerned; that is fiscally responsible. The 80 percent increase in conservation certainly does not ignore conservation interests. That is a huge increase. We have significant increases for research, 350 percent for agriculture research, and promotion of foreign trade, nutrition, rural economic development, which we badly need, and we also have some renewable fuel economies. So if this bill is rejected, we will start over in the middle of an election cycle, and we will make the 1,370-page bill that the other body presented us look very small in comparison. I urge support of the rule and passage of the bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 586, the Tax Relief Guarantee Act of 2002, and in support of the rule. I know there are divided views on whether the tax cut was good for the economy or not. Alan Greenspan says it was a good thing, and I guess I tend to agree with him. I would like to pay special attention to the permanent repeal of the death tax. Currently a farmer or small businessman needs three estate plans: First of all, if he dies before 2010, he has to be able to take advantage of the partial exemption; if he dies in 2010, he has a total repeal of the death tax; if he dies after 2010, then he has no death tax exemption and he has to pay the full death tax. This may sound a little bit extreme, but this is what is going on today. Can you imagine dropping dead while you are watching the football games on January 1, 2011, and your family will not come to the funeral the next day because you died one day too late? That is real pressure to die on time in 2010, and that is basically what we have to do. So what I would like to point out is that, as has been pointed out in previous debate, the death tax is the most unfair tax. The estate has already been taxed by income, Social Security, property and sales taxes. Then over half of what is left goes to pay taxes. Heirs usually have to sell the farm or business after estate taxes. There are not enough assets left to operate. Money leaves the communities, and this is devastating to small towns. The death tax repeal needs to be made permanent and it needs to be made permanent now, because plans are being made to transfer businesses and farms, and I think this is the time to do it.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Michigan that there should be some reform of payment limitations. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. However, I do rise to oppose the motion. I would like to point out to the gentleman from Michigan that the House version of the farm bill does increase conservation payments by 80 percent. EQIP, which addresses primarily clean water, clean air standards, is increased by 600 percent, from $200 million to $1.2 billion. Also, research is substantially increased, both versions, the House and the Senate. So I believe that those issues are being addressed. What I would like to point out is that the House Committee on Agriculture went through a 2-year process in formulating this farm bill. They had 47 hearings all around the country. It was a bipartisan bill. It was passed by a large majority on the House floor, 291-120. The other body, I think, has worked hard but primarily has done a bill within the last couple of months. It has been somewhat of a rushed process, I think most people would agree, and so therefore I am a little bit reluctant to accept the other body's version without careful thought, without making sure we have really understood fully what the circumstances are and what the repercussions might be. Currently the conferees are working hard. It is a complex issue. I am confident they will reform the payment limitation process. I would like to see them given the opportunity to work through the process. I think this is very important. The Environmental Working Group and their Web site that oppose the payments that farmers have received I think has led to a great deal of misunderstanding throughout the country. We have seen editorials, we see public opinion and all of these things that seem to be very much against commodity payments. However, I would like to point out that the payments that are posted on those websites do not constitute profit. People see a $500,000 payment and they assume that the person receives a $500,000 profit. Many people that I know who are receiving fairly large payments are still operating in the red. In my area of the country, almost every farmer will tell you that without farm payments, they would go under very quickly. Bankers will tell you that. It is not just farmers. So it is important that this is something that we understand the nature of it. The Web site has been very divisive. We lost 1,000 farmers in the State of Nebraska last year. So if it was such a windfall, it certainly would not reflect in that type of a figure, of 1,000 farmers in a relatively small State populationwise. I would like to just amplify what the gentleman from Arkansas mentioned earlier, which I think a lot of people do not think about. In the European Union, the average payment to farmers is $300 per acre. I have been to Brazil recently. Many people have who are interested in agriculture. You can buy very good agricultural land, equivalent to what we would pay $3,000 an acre for, for $100 to $500 an acre. The labor cost over there is 50 cents an hour on the average. And so we are asking our farmers to compete with the European Union where the subsidy is $300 per acre, we are asking them to compete with Brazil where the cost of land is very low, they can produce two crops, the topsoil is 50 feet deep and they have no labor cost and no environmental cost. So I am saying that the $38 an acre that we have been paying our farmers is not badly spent. The last thing I would mention was, I think, in some congruence with what the gentleman from Arkansas was mentioning. That is, that about 15 or 20 years ago, we found that we could buy petroleum from OPEC for $10 a barrel. And so we were glad to oblige them. As a result, we have shipped our petroleum industry overseas. We quit exploring, we shut down much of our production, many of our refineries, and so now we find ourselves all of a sudden almost 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. We are in a situation where everyone realizes that all we have to do is light the tinderbox in the Middle East and we have got a real problem. We can do the same thing to agriculture. We can do it very easily. We can say we are going to just forget about these commodity payments, they are evil, they are large, only rich guys get them. Most of the people that I know are not rich people that are receiving these. And so I am not arguing that we do not need reform. I agree totally that we do. I am just saying, let us take this thing and think it through. Let it go through the process and let us not just automatically accept the other body's view of what needs to happen because I have great confidence in the conferees that we have working at it right now.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very large rural area in Nebraska. Ninety-seven percent of this district is privately owned. Currently landowners are very concerned about property rights and they are especially concerned about the Endangered Species Act, because this Act can be tremendously invasive. Currently, I believe there is a crisis of confidence regarding the administration of the Endangered Species Act. I am going to mention just a few things here that have happened that have led to this crisis of confidence. First of all, the Klamath Basin situation that happened a year ago, the water, the irrigation water for 1,400 farmers was cut off abruptly. Of course, what this did was to cause a great deal of financial hardship. There were two types of suckers in Klamath Lake, and coho salmon in the river below that were supposedly to be protected. As a result, the farmers lost their crops, some lost their farms, land values declined from $2,500 an acre to $35 per acre in that particular area. Oregon State University estimates that the loss of water cost the economy $134 million in that particular area. And so this was a tremendously costly and a very invasive situation that occurred. Of course, to make matters worse, recently the National Academy of Science, in an independent peer review, ruled that there was insufficient data to justify the decision to shut off the irrigation water in the Klamath Basin. In other words, they have more or less said that this was something that should not have happened. Factors other than the lower levels in Klamath Lake were endangering the sucker fish and actually the larger releases of water, the irrigation water that normally went down the irrigation canals, was released down the Klamath River supposedly to help the coho salmon and actually because this water was warmer, the National Academy of Science indicated that these larger releases actually harmed the coho salmon. So it was the reverse of what they had tried to accomplish. Secondly, more recently, in a congressional hearing, we heard from people from Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service and these officials were asked to testify, because seven employees of these agencies and a Washington State agency also falsely planted Canadian lynx hair in the forests of Washington and Oregon. You might ask, why in the world would somebody do this? Why would you go out and bother to take hair from a captive lynx and plant it in widespread areas? Apparently this would result in a wider declaration of critical habitat for the Canadian lynx and they must have felt in some way that this would have helped preserve the Canadian lynx. Obviously, it was a falsehood and, according to testimony, others within government agencies were aware of the planted lynx hair and did not report it. The interesting thing was that after all of this happened, the guilty parties were subjected to counseling as a punishment, and most of them received their year-end bonuses and raises. And so you would think, well, what kind of a message are we sending if somebody falsifies data and yet practically no consequences occur as a result of that falsification? Recently, the National Park Service also indicated some false and inflated numbers of visitors to national forests from an actual count of 209 million visitors to our national forests, and they reported 920 million visitors which was roughly a 400 percent increase, an inflation, that was false. Again you might ask, why in the world would a responsible Federal agency do this? They certainly can count better than this. Certainly this could not be a mathematical error to miss by 700 million visitors. Again I think, many assume that this had something to do with the fact that they wanted to point out overcrowding, and that maybe some more roads or some more areas of the parks needed to be restricted to visitors because of overcrowding. And so many of these different situations have led to somewhat of a crisis of confidence in terms of how our public officials are dealing with the Endangered Species Act and our wildlife in general. It would seem that sometimes there is not a real level playing field involved in this situation. Recently here in Washington, D.C., the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Corps of Engineers permission to dump thousands of tons of sludge into the Potomac River. Of course this was in direct violation, you would think, of the Endangered Species Act because the sturgeon, the short-nosed sturgeon, occupies the Potomac River and it is endangered. And so you would say, why would they do this? How in the world could you get by with this when out in the West you cannot do these other things? And, of course, it also caused beavers and ducks and others to be mucked up to the point where they had a hard time surviving. It would appear that maybe one of the answers is that these tons of sludge, if they are not pumped into the Potomac River, would have to be put in dump trucks and would be trucked through the city of Washington, D.C., which is not real politically popular in this area. So sometimes people in rural areas have the feeling that maybe there is a double standard and maybe people in some urban areas because of the size of the population and the economic impact do not pay quite the same price. And so that has been a concern. And then the issue that I want to spend most of my time tonight on has to do with the Central Platte River in the State of Nebraska. In 1978, 56 miles of the Central Platte were declared critical habitat for the whooping crane. At that time in 1978 there were not very many cranes, whooping cranes, probably less than 50. And so they were listed as an endangered species and certainly rightly so. At the present time they are doing better. There are roughly 175 whooping cranes that fly generally through the State of Nebraska. And so as a result of that designation, we find that some things occurred. As a result, in order to protect habitat, critical habitat, for the whooping crane, the Platte River Cooperative Agreement began to take shape. What they proposed in this agreement was in-stream flows. So what was required was 2,400 cubic feet per second of water down the Platte River in that area of critical habitat in the spring. The interesting thing here is that water generally is lost to irrigation, because you do not irrigate that early in the spring, and some of it is lost to power generation as well, and it was strictly put there to enhance the habitat for the whooping crane. It was interesting, because the original recommendation by many biologists was not 2,400 cubic feet per second, but rather they said 1,300 cubic feet per second would be the ideal flow. By tweaking it one way or another, Fish and Wildlife almost doubled the flow and the amount of water that goes down the river. They wanted 1,200 cubic feet per second during the summer, and then they want pulse flows of 12,000 to 16,000 cubic feet per second for 5 days in May and June of wet years. This is a huge amount of water in the Platte River, and it results in some flooding; and it results in some real difficult situations. Some people assume that actually the main issue here is that it deepens the channels in the river when you have these large pulse flows, and then the issue is what do you do to compensate for the loss of sediment in the river when you do this? Now, the problem with those pulse flows is as follows: the 12,000 to 16,000 cubic feet per second as we mentioned will deepen the channel in the river and will remove sediment. So Nebraska is being, as part of their contribution to the cooperative agreement, is being asked to contribute 100,000 acre feet of water, stored in Lake McConahay; and this water is being used to flow down the Platte River when people feel the cranes might need it. Wyoming contributes 34,000 acre feet of water and Colorado 10,000 acre feet of water, so the total contribution is 140,000 acre feet of water. So that is an interesting premise, and it is fairly expensive. Of course, the other issue is there are some other requirements, and that is that there are no new depletions in the Platte River. So we not only have these flows, but within 3 to 4 miles of either side of the Platte River, you cannot set down a new well within 3 to 4 miles of the river after 1997. So a community that is expanding, a farmer, whatever, is no longer able to do this. Then the sediment that is lost in the river from the large pulse flows has to be replaced. At one time what they were doing was talking about the fact that they would haul in 100 dump truckloads of sediment per day, and this would go on for years and years and years. You can imagine the cost of doing this. That is supposed to replace the sediment that these large pulse flows used to take sediment out of the river. Now they have revised that, and they are talking about taking bulldozers and pushing islands into the river and causing more sediment. So as you can see, this is a very invasive procession; it is a very expensive process; and it has been very difficult to administer. That is phase one. After 10 years, phase two kicks in. Phase two, listen to this, requires 417,000 acre feet of water. That is about triple what we are talking about here, 140,000 acre feet. So when you get up to 417,000 acre feet of water, you are talking about practically all of the irrigation water used in the Platte River system. So what farmers and ranchers are rightly concerned about is that at some point the Endangered Species Act could be used in a way that would cut off all irrigation up and down the Platte River, which is several hundred miles long, and would probably make the Klamath Basin situation pale by comparison. So far the estimated total cost of the project, that is just to the cooperative agreement, it is not the water loss or anything else, just to plan it is $160 million. That is just to create it, as we said. That is a small cost compared to the cost of the irrigation water, the power lost and the land and sediment dumping and so on. So I think most people would say the cooperative agreement has been time-consuming, has been expensive and has been burdensome to landowners. And, the most important thing, the thing I would really like to drive home tonight, is the idea that the whole thing, I believe, is based on a false premise; and the false premise is that that 56-mile stretch of the Platte River is critical for the existence of the whooping crane. So let us take a look at the map of Nebraska. The area here in red, from Lexington to Grand Island, is the critical habitat for the whooping crane, really not quite that far. So the idea of critical habitat is this is habitat that it is removed or in some way damaged or changed; it really does great damage to the endangered species. So you would assume that this would be an area that would really be critical to the migration of the whooping crane as they go north and south. So let us take a look at this issue and some of the data. The Watershed Program director, who worked for the Whooping Crane Trust, this was an environmental group, not a farm group, this was an environmental group, and he worked for that group for 17 years and wrote a document filed on March 22, 2000, that was sent to Fish and Wildlife, and the letter states as follows: ``From 1970 through 1998, that is a total of 29 years, 11 years there were no whooping cranes.'' That is almost 40 percent of the time there were no whooping cranes that were sighted at any point in this stretch of river, which is supposedly critical habitat. You would think if that was critical habitat, that certainly you would not go 40 percent of the years without any observation of a whooping crane in that area. Then he goes on to say this: ``On average, less than 1 percent of the population of whooping cranes was ever confirmed in the Platte Valley during that same time frame.'' So, again, if it is critical habitat, you would think that you would see 50 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent, whatever. But you have had 1 percent or less cranes who have ever been seen in that region of the river over 29 years. Probably the most convincing evidence that I have run across is that from 1981 to 1984, a period of 2\1/2\ to 3 years, there was a radio- tracking study of whooping cranes where they had an electronic collar put on them so you knew absolutely where they were all the time. This went on for three southern migrations and two northern migrations. Eighteen cranes at that time represented somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of the total whooping crane population. Here was what they found in that research: they found that none of those 18 whooping cranes over 2\1/2\ years, three southern and two northern migrations, none of them used the Platte River at any time during that migration. Now, surely if this is critical habitat for the whooping crane, you would think that at least seven or eight or nine of those cranes would have regularly used the river, but yet not one of them did over that period of time of 2\1/2\ years. It is not a case here where they can slip out of the area under the radar screen, because they are checked electronically and they know where they are. They were not in that area of the river. So the author goes on to say: ``I wonder if the Platte River would even be considered if the Fish and Wildlife Service was charged with designating critical habitat today. Whooping crane experts that I have visited would be hard-pressed to consider the Platte River, given our current state of knowledge.'' Then he says: ``Certainly none would be willing to state on a witness stand that the continued existence of the species would be in jeopardy if the Platte River were to disappear.'' So what he is saying is if this area of the Platte River for some reason went away, he does not know of any experts that would say that would harm the whooping crane. Yet that is the critical habitat, and that is the area that has caused all of the in-stream flows, the 140,000 acre feet of water and the sediment being dumped into the Platte River to compensate for pulse flows, and all of the things that are going on up and down this river, which really have impacted farmers and ranchers. Also within three miles of either side of this river, you cannot drill a new well. Anytime you do, you have to close down another one. So all of the water here is restricted, primarily for this particular stretch of the Platte which is supposed to preserve the whooping crane. So again, I would have to say that this is a false premise. The thing we might also mention is that whooping cranes, normally when they do stop in February, and they do stop, and you will see a scattergram of where they stop, and there are some here, and there are some here and up here, so they are all through the State, but normally they only stay overnight. If this was critical habitat, they would probably stay here for several days, a week, maybe a month, and regroup, do some mating, whatever; but they do not. I think they simply fly along, and when they are tired and see some water, they drop in for the evening. It may be here, it may be here, it could be almost anywhere place. It might be on a lake, Sand Hill Lake or whatever. But the important thing to remember is this central part of the Platte is really critical habitat for one group of cranes, and that is the Sand Hill cranes. There are roughly 400,000 to 500,000 Sand Hill cranes that come into that area, and they spend 2 to 4 weeks every year. They come from Arizona, and they come from Texas and Oklahoma and Arkansas and Louisiana; and they funnel into this area, and they are heavily concentrated in this area; and then they go up to their nesting grounds up in Canada and North Dakota and so on. So what has happened I think is early on Fish and Wildlife and others made a mistake, and I think it was an honest mistake. I think they assumed that the whooping crane does the same thing as the Sand Hill crane, and that the whooping crane really needed this area to spend time to stage, to mate, to gain strength for the rest of their trip. But that is not the case. We very well have proven this at the present time. There is one whooping crane that got mixed up, and this whooping crane apparently was imprinted and identified with Sand Hill cranes. They have even named it. ``Oklahoma'' is the name of it. This particular crane comes with the Sand Hill cranes, and he sticks around for 3 or 4 weeks like the other Sand Hill cranes, because he thinks he is a Sand Hill crane, apparently. I would wonder how many of the sightings in this area have been Oklahoma, that one crane. He may have been sighted many times over. So, anyway, there is a difference between these two different species; and I think it is important that we understand that this is the case. Actually, Fish and Wildlife is doing everything they can to make the habitat fit the whooping crane. Twice a day they fly the river here looking for whooping cranes; and, of course, if you look hard enough, you may find something. But, still, you are only having 1 percent, maybe 2 percent of the total population, even with surveillance flights going back and forth on the river. Only 1 to 2 percent of the whooping cranes are spotted in that area as they come north or as they go south. So, again, we would say that probably most definitely there has been an improper designation of this area for the whooping crane, and nobody cares too much if it is an improper designation. The main issue is simply the fact that it is causing an awful lot of disruption up and down the Platte River Valley. Now, further, and I think this is important too, Fish and Wildlife is expected shortly to declare 450 miles of the Platte River and the Loop River right here and the Niabrara River as critical habitat for the piping plover and the least tern. Ninety-seven percent of these rivers flow through private land. Also these same two species, the piping plover and the least tern, will have critical habitat declared in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Minnesota; and in those States almost 100 percent of the area is public land. In Nebraska it is almost all private. The same issues that apply to the whooping crane apply to this particular designation of these species. So it is interesting. But let us stick with the middle section of the Platte River, because this is the area we know the most about, and this is the area where we have the most data. Again, refer to the document from the watershed director who wrote the letter. He said ``that the Central Platte does not offer any naturally occurring nesting habitat for these species, i.e., the piping plover and least tern, is amply demonstrated by the fact that no tern or plover chicks were known to fledge on any natural river sandbar during the entire decade of the 1990s.'' So this stretch of river we have been talking about was studied over a 10-year period, and at that time they found no fledglings of chicks on the river, other than in sand pits which are off the river and then some man-made sandbars that were strictly designed for this fledgling capacity. So the problem is that these birds nest near the water level. So any time there is a fluctuation, any time a river raises, it flushes out the nests. So they do pretty well on lakes, they do pretty well on sand pits, but they do not do very well on rivers, particularly rivers that fluctuate. So the letter from this particular individual who wrote to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the researcher said this. He said, ``A 50-to-60 day window of flows less than about 1,500 cubic feet per second during late May through mid July is necessary to allow for nesting and subsequent fledging. This did not happen in the 1990s. Nests and/or young were flooded out.'' So what he is saying is this: that on that stretch of Platte River, any time you get elevated flows above 1,500 cubic feet per second, because the nests are built right at water level, you are going to flush them out. So what they are trying to do is that they are trying to regulate flows in the river from this lake right here, Lake McConaughy. The problem is that the lake is 100 miles from the start of the critical habitat, right there, and it is about 170 miles to the end of the critical habitat, which is right there. Now, the problem is that it takes, to go 100 miles, that water needs 5 days to get to the start of the habitat, it needs 7 days to get to the bottom end of the habitat, so you are releasing water out of Lake McConaughy to control the flow to try to get 1,500 cubic feet per second or whatever. The problem is that in the next 5 days, we better not have a rain. Because if we have a rain down here or if we have a significant inflow from the South Platte River, then, all of a sudden, that water comes up and that is what happened for 10 straight years. All of those rivers were flushed out. So here we have critical habitat, again, that is going to be very disruptive to ranchers and farmers that apparently is not working. For some reason, the sand pits and the lakes and the other areas where the piping plover and the least tern have been hatching and have been fledging have not been declared as critical habitat; only the rivers. So this is a little bit of a puzzle, at least to me; I do not quite understand exactly how this is working. So it would seem that attempting to create a river environment which, for most nesting by the piping plover and the least tern, may actually harm the species. This is the logic. Again, the letter from this particular researcher goes on. He says, ``This begs the question as to whether it is in the best interests of the species' long term well-being to attract them to an area where they are likely to be flooded or eaten by predators.'' So what you do is you adjust the river and in the spring, because you are trying to hold down the flows, you get them to nest and then over that next 50 or 60 days, you are holding your breath and, most of the time, they are going to get flooded out. So you attract them into an area that probably is going to result in their destruction. They would be much better off if they went to a sand pit or some place where they are not going to be flooded out. So in some ways, all of the machinations and the different gyrations that we are going through here to save the piping plover and the least tern may actually contribute to their demise. So it is interesting to note that much of the regulation of critical habitat is designed to restore habitat to its original state. That is sort of the gold standard I think for many environmental groups, and particularly for Fish and Wildlife. So we read in the Journals of Lewis and Clark 1800, as they went up the Missouri River, we read about prairie dogs and we read about buffalo. So these folks are pointing to these journals and they are saying, well, this is where the prairie dogs once lived and this was before people disturbed it. Therefore, we must restore this situation, this habitat, and we must make sure these species are again existent in those areas. So there was a study done by EA Engineering in the late 1980s, and they indicated this. They said the Central Platte did not play a significant role in the maintenance of the least tern or the piping plover prior to the construction of Kingsley Dam in 1941. Here is the dam, and what they are saying is before that dam was in existence back in the 1800s, nobody saw the piping plover or least tern in any numbers at all along the Platte River. They said there were 3 reasons for this: Number one that ran the river ran unimpeded; the snow pack melted and the highest water would occur in June, which was about in the peak nesting time for the piping plover and least tern. Every year they got wiped out because that water went up and they could no longer survive and then, the Platte River is rather unique in that in August, it would dry up. Most years there would not be any water in the river, which meant essentially that there was no feed, there was no habitat for the young birds if they did manage to survive. So the river was not really what some people thought it was. Then lastly, there was no historical data of tern or plover sightings on the Central Platte at all during the early 1900s, the late 1800s. So we would say, well, certainly, if settlers, trappers, people who went along the river, if they were there they would have seen them and they would have reported them, but they did not do so. So the assumption is that this is not critical habitat that is indigenous to the species. This is not something that has occurred over a long period of time, and if it has worked at all, it has been because of that dam. But even then, it has not been effective. So what we are saying here is that the critical habitat designations for the whooping crane and the piping plover would not seem to be accurate, at least the way I interpret the data. So I have requested the Secretary of the Interior provide an independent peer review through the National Academy of Science or some equivalent agency. I know that Secretary Norton is dedicated to making decisions based on accurate data. I have talked to her, and I know this is true. So we are assuming, we are hoping that we can avert another situation similar to the Klamath Basin by having an independent peer review. I think everyone is willing to live with it if the data indicates it. But most people that I know who study the river are really uncomfortable with making this critical habitat and all of the changes that occur in Nebraska, in Wyoming and in Colorado, for what appears to be nonexistent habitat. So we are hoping that we can get a study done. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that those listening do not assume that I oppose endangered species. I am very much in tune with wildlife and I certainly do not want to see the whooping crane suffer, the piping plover, the least tern, the prairie dog, or whatever, but I think it is important to remember that sometimes the Endangered Species Act may actually harm the species. Of course I already mentioned that the coho salmon was harmed by the larger flows out of Klamath Lake because the water warmed up and when the water went down the river, the coho were damaged. So that is one example of the Endangered Species Act actually harming a species. We have also talked about the flows on the Central Platte luring the piping plover to nest and then having them wiped out by rain events. Then let us consider one other case, and that is the issue of prairie dogs, because the prairie dogs are now considered threatened. They are not listed. But I think the one thing that people need to understand is that ranchers and farmers right now can, in places, tolerate some prairie dogs, because they know they can control them. Now, a prairie dog can take over and eliminate a whole pasture, a whole ranch, a whole farm if they are left unchecked. But you can handle a prairie dog colony here, a prairie dog colony there, and you understand if they start spreading, you can do something to control the spread. But once the prairie dog is listed as endangered or threatened, then you cannot do anything to that prairie dog. So ranchers and farmers are concerned. So right now, some ranchers and farmers are saying, I cannot afford to have any prairie dogs on my property in case it is listed as an endangered species. So I think right now in some ways, the Endangered Species Act and the ability to list the prairie dog potentially may be working against the prairie dog more than any other issue at the present time. So we have had several examples, and there are others where the Endangered Species Act does not serve landowners and wildlife well. We talked about the Klamath Basin issue, the 2001 Canadian lynx, falsification of visitor data to national forests, the ignoring of the dumping of sludge into the Potomac and also the critical habitat designation on the Platte River. Let us be fair. I think it is only fair to say this too. I have been a little bit hard on fish and wildlife and the Forest Service. Certainly the great majority of Federal employees who work with endangered species are ethical, they are hard-working. I have met them, I know them and I have worked with them. It is like any profession: 5 or the 10 percent tend to paint with a very broad brush. However, I would have to say this, in all candor. I do believe that an end-justifies-the-means mentality has become more and more pervasive. In other words, there is the thought process that we need to save the species; therefore, we are going to make sure that we do whatever we have to do to have plenty of critical habitat, and we are going to protect the species and we are not going to be too worried about the financial consequences to ranchers and other people. So the absolute authority granted by the Endangered Species Act has given license, I believe, to rather serious abuses and we have chronicled some of those this evening. The person closest to the species is the landowner and the person who often cares as much about the species as anybody is the landowner. So I have seen some cases where Fish and Wildlife people have worked in partnership and in a symbiotic relationship with the landowners. This has made a huge difference, because when you get the landowners on board, when they are with you and they understand what you are trying to do and they understand you are not out to get them, some great things can happen for the wildlife. So I have seen it that way. I have seen it on the other hand too. I have seen arbitrary behavior where the Endangered Species Act has been used as a club: my way or the highway. You guys do not have any rights, we are going to shove it down your throat. When that happens, you find that the landowner is forced to choose between a species and his livelihood, and the landowner usually is going to choose his livelihood. The Endangered Species Act, often unnecessarily, forces the landowner to make this choice, and when this happens, everyone loses.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in support of the Pension Security Act. The district that I represent is very rural, small towns and small businesses; and I think it is important to point out that most of the business done in this country is done by small businesses, not by Fortune 500 companies. My father was a small businessman, and my brother currently runs one. The number one complaint that I hear is that government regulation is so burdensome that many small businesses are damaged or driven out of business entirely. Examples of this would be parts of the Tax Code, ergonomic regulation, health care paperwork, and retirement plan paperwork. The President's plan addresses the major issues that resulted in the loss of retirement benefits of Enron employees without adding significant regulatory burdens. I think it strikes a good balance. The Pension Security Act allows employees to sell stock within 3 years. One of the major problems at Enron was an employee had to be 55 years of age or more and had to be employed for 10 years or more. It prohibits senior executives from selling stock during blackout periods, and requires 30 days' notice before declaring blackouts. Neither of these were true in the Enron case. In addition, the plan requires companies to give regular financial reports on the value of the stock. Also the President's plan includes the Retirement Security Advice Act, which has already passed the House, which provides for increased availability of investment advisers to assist plan participants in making good decisions about their investments. Currently, only 16 percent of businesses provide this advice; and in most cases small businesses do not provide it at all, whereas roughly 75 percent of employees would like such advice. I think this would be very helpful. So the greatest concern I have is that this well-intentioned substitute, and I am sure it is motivated from good intentions, will provide safeguards that will really eliminate pension plans, and that is absolutely something that helps no one.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very large rural area in Nebraska. Actually, 97 percent of the district is privately owned. From about this area here on west is the third district, which I represent. Currently, landowners are very concerned about property rights; and they are especially concerned about the Endangered Species Act, because this can be very intrusive and very threatening to landowners. Among those I represent, three events have contributed to this loss of confidence, and I will mention each one individually. The first is the Klamath Basin situation that happened in Oregon this past year. As many people understand and realize, Fish and Wildlife shut off the irrigation water that served 1,400 farms in the Klamath Basin. They did so rather abruptly. The crops had already been planted, and this was done to protect the short-nosed sucker which lived in Klamath Lake and which is listed as endangered and also to help the coho salmon population in the river below in Klamath River. So the farmers lost their crops; some lost their farms. Land values declined from $2,500 per acre to $35 per acre, and Oregon State University estimates the loss of water cost the economy roughly $134 million in that area. So naturally, landowners across the country, landowners in Nebraska were aware of this; and they are concerned about how far-reaching and how invasive the Endangered Species Act can become. Recently, the National Academy of Science performed an independent review of the Klamath River Basin situation. Listen to what they found: they ruled that there was insufficient data to justify the decision to shut off the irrigation water. They said that cutting off water was not necessary to save the short-nosed sucker in Klamath Lake. Factors other than low water levels were endangering the sucker, so it was not the low water level at all. Also, actually, they found that larger releases in the Klamath River did not help the coho salmon but actually may have, in some ways, endangered them further. So the whole situation in Klamath River has been called into serious question, and it would appear that all of the economic and financial damage that was done was all for naught; and in most cases, it would appear that it was something that should not have happened at all. Secondly, there was a congressional hearing last week that I participated in in the Committee on Resources, and they had members of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service; and these officials were asked to testify because seven employees of these agencies and also employees of a Washington State agency falsely planted Canadian lynx hair in Washington and Oregon. This was an obvious effort to falsify data and to show that the Canadian lynx had an expanded and much larger range than what was believed. This would also have enhanced and enlarged their critical habitat for the Canadian lynx. According to testimony, others within the government agencies were aware of the planted lynx hair and did not report it. This was a rather bizarre and unusual thing, because we would think that these employees would be in significant difficulty for having falsified the data. In many cases, we would have thought they would have been terminated. But actually, what they received as punishment was a verbal reprimand, verbal counseling, I guess is the way they put it, and most of these employees received their year-end bonuses, so it did not seem that the agency took any significant action. I guess that leaves many of us who are concerned about the Endangered Species Act to have some pause about what has been going on here. The third instance that I would like to discuss, that I think is particularly important and more relevant to the State of Nebraska, where I live, is that in 1978, 56 miles of the Central Platte River was declared critical habitat for the whooping crane. This area is designated by the red line here that goes from Lexington, Nebraska, down to Grand Island. That is 56 miles. It was assumed that that stretch of river is critical for the survival of the whooping crane. At one time, there were less than 50 whooping cranes in existence, so it was certainly endangered, no one questions that. Currently, the population of whooping cranes is at 175, but they are still definitely endangered. In 1994, Fish and Wildlife proposed end-stream flows in the Platte River to preserve the whooping crane. They wanted to manage the amount of water going down the river, which would supposedly enable the whooping crane to have a better chance to survive. They proposed that 2,400 cubic feet per second for 6 weeks during the spring would go down the river. This is a lot of water to go down the river, and that is water that could be stored here in Lake McConaughy later on for irrigation, but it is water that was used or is proposed to be used strictly for the whooping crane and for their habitat. The flows in the river are recommended to be 1,200 cubic feet per second in the summer, and then they would, like on wet weather years, occasionally they want ``pulse'' flows of 12,000 to 16,000 cubic feet per second, and those flows would have to persist for at least 5 days in duration during the months of May and June. When you have 12,000 or 16,000 cubic feet per second, you are talking about flood or near-flood stages. We have some lowland flooding along the Platte, some crop ground that is certainly damaged; and the big problem is that if we have a rain or extra water coming in here in the South Platte, we have an all-out catastrophe, or at least the potential for it. So this is where the controversy begins, because obviously the 2,400 cubic feet per second down the river, and that being lost to crops and to uses that municipalities and farmers can use along the river, has not gone down real well. Of course, the ``pulse'' flows have caused even greater consternation. One of the things about the ``pulse'' flows is that they also scour the river bed. They remove sediment and deepen the channel. As far as the cranes are concerned, this is not something that is desirable. So in order to accomplish these end-stream flows, there was a cooperative agreement that was formed between Colorado and Wyoming and Nebraska, those three States, and, of course, Colorado is here, Wyoming is here, and Nebraska is here, to serve that 56 miles of river. Now, Nebraska's contribution to the cooperative agreement is 100,000 acre-feet of water stored in Lake McConaughy, this lake right here, and that is roughly one-ninth to one-tenth of the whole capacity of the lake. That lake is to be stored for an environmental account, to be released at any time that it is assumed that the whooping cranes might need that water. Also, there are no new depletions in this area of the Platte Valley after 1997. What that means is that if you had an irrigation well and you drilled that well in 1998, you had to shut down another well so there was no net depletion of water. Or if you were a municipality and you needed more water from the Platte River, then you had in some way to mitigate that and to shut down or reduce water use in another area. So since 1997, supposedly there are no new depletions in the river area. In addition, there were 10,000 acres of critical habitat that was designated and set aside for the whooping crane. Then this is probably the most bizarre issue of all. In order to replace the sediment that was taken out of the Platte by the ``pulse'' flows, it was recommended that there be 100 dump trucks of sediment hauled in and dumped in the Platte River every day for as long as possibly 100 years. That was so ludicrous that eventually Fish and Wildlife has backed off of that. Now all they are talking about is bulldozing or moving islands that are located in or near the river into the river, so this idea of replacing sediment has been a major issue. Wyoming's contribution to the cooperative agreement is 34,000 acre- feet of water from Pathfinder Dam. Colorado's contribution is 10,000 acre-feet of water through the Tamarack plan. So, in total, phase one, the first 10 years, the amount dedicated to providing habitat for the whooping crane is 140,000 acre-feet of water per year. That is a lot of water going down the Platte River that could be used for a lot of different other issues that would certainly have a tremendous impact on the economy. Also, 10,000 acres, as we mentioned, has been set aside for the environmental aspects, and then the sediment replacement that we talked about. Now, that is just phase 1. Eventually what the plan is, is to have 29,000 acres of habitat set aside and 417,000 acre-feet of water annually going down the river for environmental purposes. Now, that is increasing the 140,000 by roughly threefold, and no one knows quite where we can come up with that amount of water. That is an astronomical amount in the West, which generally tends to be rather dry. The cost of the cooperative agreement, to date, is $5.5 million. That is just to begin to formulate the plan. The estimated total cost of the cooperative agreement is $160 million. That does not say anything about what it costs to move sediment into the river. That does not say anything about what it costs to have the no new depletions allotment, or what the costs to irrigators, farmers, and ranchers along the river would be in terms of lost water. The $160 million would be just a fraction of the total cost. So the cooperative agreement has been time-consuming, it has been expensive, it has been burdensome to landowners, and most importantly, and this is the critical issue, the whole cooperative agreement idea seems to be based on a false premise. That premise is that the 56-mile stretch of the Middle Platte is critical for the existence of the whooping crane. In other words, this stretch of river right here is necessary and it has to be managed in the way that the cooperative agreement has specified in order for the whooping crane to survive. There was a watershed program director who worked for the Whooping Crane Trust, which is an environmental group, it is not a group of farmers or ranchers or anyone who is against wildlife. This person worked for the Whooping Crane Trust. He worked for them for 17 years. He wrote a document filed on March 22 of the year 2000. This letter was sent to Fish and Wildlife. It reads as follows: ``From 1970 through 1998,'' that is 28 years, ``38 percent of the years exhibited no confirmed whooping crane sightings along the Platte River. On average, less than 1 percent of the population of whooping cranes was confirmed in the Platte Valley during that same time frame.'' This is not just in the river, but in the whole valley. What he was saying was that 11 out of 29 years, there were no sightings of whooping cranes on the Platte River, and yet we are assuming that this stretch of river right here is critical for their survival. There was an average of between one and two sightings per year over that 29-year period. Now, obviously, if you have 175 whooping cranes and that is critical habitat, we are going to see more than one or two in a year, and we are not going to go 11 or 12 years without seeing any. He goes on to say this: ``During the 1981-1984 radio tracking study of whooping cranes,'' and in other words, they put an electronic collar on the cranes, ``18 whoopers were tracked on three southbound and two northbound migrations.'' So this took place over a 2\1/2\-year time frame. He said, ``Of those 18 whoopers, none of them used the Platte River.'' None of those that were tracked electronically were even in the Platte River or in that region. So the author of the report goes on to say this: ``I wonder if the Platte River would even be considered if the Fish and Wildlife Service was charged with designating critical habitat today. Whooping crane experts that I have visited with would be hard-pressed to consider the Platte River, given our current state of knowledge, certainly, none would be willing to state on a witness stand that the continued existence of the species would be in jeopardy if the Platte River were to disappear.'' So this was his conclusion, and this was the result of years of study. Yet, we have this very elaborate plan that has been concocted in order to preserve that piece of river when apparently it really does not serve the whooping crane to any great degree at all. Further, and this is important as well, this week Fish and Wildlife is expected to declare 450 miles of the Platte and Loup and Niobrara rivers as critical habitat for the piping plover, so we are switching now from the whooping crane to the piping plover. Now, this is the Niobrara River here, and almost all of that river in its entirety is expected to be declared critical habitat. This is the north Loup, the middle Loup, and the south Loup. Again, that is going to be designated as critical habitat. Now, the stretch of the Platte River extends from Cozad, right here, 80 miles to Chapman, right here. So it is approximately the same range as the whooping crane designation, but just a little bit further. So 97 percent of these river designations flow through Nebraska private lands. In other States where the piping plover is going to have critical habitat, such as Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, roughly 97 to, in some cases, 100 percent of the habitat is strictly on public lands, so Nebraska is really hard hit as far as private lands. Let us stick with the Middle Platte, because this is the area that has been studied the most. This is the area that we have the most data on. Again, let us refer to the document presented by the watershed program director. This is what he said about critical habitat for the piping plover. ``The Central Platte River does not offer any naturally occurring nesting habitat for these species, as amply demonstrated by the fact that no tern or plover chicks were known to fledge on any natural river sandbar during the entire decade of the 1990s.'' So what he is saying is that he and his colleagues studied this stretch of river right here, and during the 1990s, they found no reproduction of the piping plover or the least tern, which is also endangered, on that whole stretch of river. Yet, that is going to be designated as critical habitat for those birds. The problem with this situation is that these birds nest near the water level, so if you have water at this level, the nest is going to be just a few inches above the water. Of course, the letter goes on to say this: ``A 50-to-60-day window of flows less than about 1,500 cubic feet per second during late May through mid-July is necessary to allow for nesting and subsequent fledging. This did not happen in the 1990s. Nests and/or young were flooded out.'' So during that period of time, 50 to 60 days, the better part of 2 months, in June and July, the water level must stay constant. It must stay very low, because once the birds build their nests, any surge of water is going to wipe out the nest. So during the decade of the 1990s, that is what happened every year. Every time there was any nest that was built, they were wiped out. Yet, this is where the critical habitat is going to be designated. So flows are regulated from releases from Lake McConaughy. This is the major problem here, too. Here is Lake McConaughy. This is what controls 100,000 acre-feet of water that can be sent down the river at key times. Now, the problem is that it is 100 miles from Lake McConaughy to Cozad or Lexington. It takes 5 days for the water from Lake McConaughy to reach this area. So if we think we have the flow controlled, and then all of a sudden you have an inch or 2-inch rain or half-inch, or have a rain in Colorado which comes down the South Platte River, which is not regulated by the dam, all of a sudden you have a surge in the water flow, and for 10 years there was no way to assure that there would be 1,500-acre cubic feet per second or less in the river, and hence, we lost the fledging that was supposed to occur. So it is ironic that Fish and Wildlife chose to designate critical habitat in rivers which obviously has not worked and has ignored sand pits and lake shores which do work. Now all along the Platte River there are sand pits and small lakes and the only fledging, the only nesting that has been successful for the piping plover and the lease tern over the past 10 years or even 15 years has been on these sand pits, and yet none of these sand pits were designated as critical habitat by Fish and Wildlife, which is really hard to understand. Sand pits or dredge islands are the only places where young have fledged in recent years, and so it would seem that attempting to create a river environment which promotes nesting by the piping plover and lease tern may actually harm the species. Again, we refer to the report and the author says this: ``This begs the question as to whether it is in the best interests of this species' long-term well-being to attract them to an area where they are likely to be flooded or eaten by predators.'' So what he is saying, in some cases, they have taken bulldozers, they have knocked down trees, they have tried to create artificial sand bars which would attract the piping plover and the lease tern to nest in the river; and when they have done that, invariably those nests have been wiped out by high water that comes surging down the river. So in a sense, it has worked against the species to attract them to nest in an area where nesting is not going to be successful. It would be much better off if they were nesting in sand pits, small lakes where that is not going to happen to them. It would seem that the critical habitat designation for the whooping crane in the first instance and the piping plover are inaccurate designations. The data simply does not support the designation. Therefore, I have requested the Secretary of the Interior provide an independent peer review through the National Academy of Sciences or some equivalent agency to review the listing of this habitat on the Platte River. I talked to Secretary Norton. I know that she is dedicated to making decisions based on accurate data, and we are very hopeful that her agency will see to it that there is a further independent peer review. This did happen on the Klamath Basin. Unfortunately, it happened too late for the farmers. It was done after the fact. In this case we want to have it done before the fact, before the list, before things get out of hand; and we think that is very important. Mr. Speaker, it is important to those listening that they do not assume that I am against endangered species. Quite often people from agriculture areas are assumed to be automatically against wildlife, against endangered species; and that is absolutely not the case. However, I do oppose the Endangered Species Act as it is now interpreted and administered. Sometimes the Endangered Species Act may actually harm the species. We have already given an example or two. For instance, the National Academy of Sciences study indicates that higher flows from Klamath Lake actually in some cases harm the coho salmon. My colleagues say how does that occur, and what happened was Klamath Lake is relatively shallow; and so when they kept water in Klamath Lake, instead of running some of that water down irrigation canals, they sent it all down the river. The water was warmer in Klamath River than it was normally because there are springs in the bottom of the river, and so as a result they warmed up the water in Klamath River, which was actually endangering and harming to the coho salmon. So sometimes there are unintended consequences, and sometimes the Endangered Species Act does not work in ways that it was designed to work. Actually, we have also mentioned that alterations in the Central Platte often entice the nesting of plovers and terns, and we have talked about that, dragging them into sand bars where they get washed out. Then lastly, let us consider one other instance where the Endangered Species Act probably is not serving a species very well, and that would be the area of prairie dogs. Fish and Wildlife and others have viewed as a baseline the journals of Lewis and Clark back around 1800 to determine where the natural habitat for prairie dogs was. As many people know, Lewis and Clark went up the Missouri River, went on up into South Dakota, on over here into Montana, and so they journaled and they mentioned wildlife. They mentioned prairie dogs; but as most anyone can see, in the State of Nebraska very little of Nebraska except along the Missouri River was ever covered by Lewis and Clark. So how can we say what the natural range of prairie dogs was when we go back to a document that is more than 200 years old? Anyway, we are certainly in the middle of a controversy in Nebraska, in Montana and South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, other Western States regarding the prairie dog. The prairie dog right now is considered to be threatened, but it is not listed. What that means essentially is that apparently Fish and Wildlife feels that it is endangered, but they have not gotten around to listing it; and many of us are hoping that they will reconsider before they do list it. The thing to remember is that landowners will often tolerate prairie dogs as long as they can be managed. So if someone has got a ranch of 12,000 acres and they know they have got a prairie dog town down in one corner of their ranch and maybe another one up in this corner and they are certainly not out of control and they are not damaging a whole lot of pasture land, they are probably going to live and let live with those prairie dogs. But if on the other hand they realize that Fish and Wildlife is about to list the prairie dog as an endangered species and they can no longer touch those prairie dogs and they know very well that if they start moving and if they expand they can absolutely ruin a pasture, they could ruin half their land, they could ruin it all, and so what are they going to do? Are they going to let those prairie dog colonies survive, or are they going to make sure there are no endangered species on their property when the listing actually occurs? I would say right now that that is happening to some degree with the prairie dogs. So the Endangered Species Act at this point is probably not serving the prairie dog to any great degree. Matter of fact, it may be harming it. I think it is important that we understand that landowners are not people who are out to get the species. We have seen three examples of areas where the Endangered Species Act has not served landowners or wildlife well, the Klamath Basin crisis, the Canadian lynx falsified data, and then the critical habitat designation for the whooping crane, the piping plover and the Central Platte of Nebraska. Generally speaking, the person that is closest to the species is the landowner, and I think that is something that people need to realize. There are a lot of environmental groups around the country, and they are very interested in species; and they care a lot about wildlife, but they are not right there with them every day like the landowner is. Most landowners that I have known like wildlife. They certainly do not want to harm an endangered species, and so I have seen cases where Fish and Wildlife representatives have worked very well with landowners. I saw one in the central part of Nebraska where this person incorporated 15 or 20 farmers, and together they were able to create wetlands and habitat that was really outstanding for water fowl. So there is a cooperative effort, and usually landowners will respond to that type of approach. On the other hand, I have seen Fish and Wildlife become rather arbitrary. They have used the Endangered Species Act as a club; and as a result, when forced to choose between a species and one's livelihood, the landowner usually is going to choose his livelihood. So I think it is important that we understand that the Endangered Species Act in some ways can be an effective tool, but it has got to be used differently. It is not being used very effectively at the present time. I think it needs to be modified. The Endangered Species Act often unnecessarily forces the landowner to make this choice; and when this happens, everyone loses.

Mr. OSBORNE

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

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks ago, I went with members of the Committee on Agriculture to Colombia. We were fortunate enough to have dinner one evening with President Pastrana at his version of Camp David, which is in Cartagena. During that evening, we were able to get well acquainted. He described his being kidnapped by guerillas a few years ago and all that he went through and the general lay of the land down there and his struggles with the FARC and the ELN and the AUC. In the progress of that evening, what we learned is that there are roughly 600,000 acres of coca plants under cultivation in the country of Colombia. This allows them to provide roughly 90 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States. As a result, FARC and these other vigilante groups are very well funded. I would imagine that their funding may exceed that of other legitimate enterprises within the country of Colombia. And so the people in Colombia have paid a great price. Last year, we were told that 29,000 civilians lost their lives in this conflict. They are caught in between the various groups. In many cases, they have no place to go and no place to hide. As has been mentioned earlier, seven members of Congress have been killed in the last 4 years, and five lawmakers are currently hostages in that country. So the present negotiations, or the negotiations that have gone on for the last 3 or 4 years, have broken down and now Colombia is basically under a reign of terror, where some of the things that we have seen around the world are now being perpetrated on the Colombian people. We have seen bridges blown up, water supplies such as in Bogota have been damaged and threatened. So it appears at this time that the only solution is that the United States provide help. We already have provided quite a bit. But the big issue is helicopters, because the pilots that are doing the spraying of the coca to try to eliminate it are certainly under a great deal of duress. So we need also some commitment from Colombia, but they need our aid.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for that fine endorsement. I appreciate it. I rise in support of the Green-Burr amendment, which would strike section 305 of the Shays-Meehan bill. While attempting to reform the campaign finance system, section 305 unfairly burdens television stations. Giving political candidates dramatically lower rates for advertising hurts the television industry and interferes with normal commerce. Lowering the amount of money candidates spend on television ads supplants advertisers who pay standard rates, and this is very unfair. In addition, section 305 will not reduce campaign spending. If candidates are allowed to buy cheaper spots on television, this will only lead to a large influx of political ads during the campaign season. I urge support for the Green-Burr amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind comments of the gentleman and rise in strong support of this resolution. Over the last 36 years of my life, I was involved in coaching and dealt with young people on a daily basis. I guess some of the observations I had were not all positive. We saw some tremendous changes in our culture, in our young people, over those 36 years. Some of those changes had to do with family. I think many people can intuitively understand those things that I am talking about. In the early 1960s, we saw very few people that we were recruiting dealing with living without both of their biological parents. Today, that number is almost 50 percent, so there is a huge number have had some dysfunction in their families. We went from a 5 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in 1960 to 33 percent today. Currently, we have 18 million fatherless children in our country. I guess I saw firsthand that when your father is not around and many times does not even care to stay around long enough to see what you look like, it leaves a hole in your life. Usually, you are spending the rest of your life somehow trying to fill that gap, and sometimes it is with all the wrong things. There has been a tremendous amount of change in our family structure. We have also seen some significant changes in the culture. We currently are the most violent country in the world for children in regard to homicide and suicide. Second place is not even very close. We have also seen some significant increases in drugs and alcohol. And, of course, all of these things have been very harmful to our children. I guess from my standpoint, the greatest threat to our country today is not terrorism, it is not the economy, it is not Social Security, it is not Medicare. Rather, it is what is happening to our young people, because if our young people are not in good shape, do not have the character, do not have the background to hold this country together, we will go the way of many other civilizations. So, we cannot pass a law that is going to solve these problems, unfortunately, but we can provide a mentor. A mentor is an adult who cares, who affirms, who supports and provides a vision for young people. So many young people really do not have an idea of what they could be or what they could accomplish, and that is where a mentor oftentimes comes in. Mentoring works. Studies, many studies, have shown these particular data: A mentoring program will reduce absenteeism from school by more than 50 percent, produces significantly better grades, higher graduation rates. In addition, mentoring reduces drug abuse by nearly 50 percent and also significant reductions in alcohol abuse and also reduces smoking. It also results in a significant reduction in teen pregnancy and promiscuous behavior. It results in improved self-esteem, personal hygiene and interpersonal relationships. Finally, a good mentoring program reduces fighting, antisocial behavior and criminal behavior by significant degrees. Currently in the United States we are mentoring roughly 500,000 young people, and it is estimated by school authorities and people who work with young people we have approximately 20 million young people who are desperately in need of a mentor. So we feel that this initiative is a step in the right direction. It is only a start. It can provide some significant data as to what works, what is the best way to mentor, and we plan to have at least some mentoring programs in every State in the Union that will give us the data that we need to follow this valuable exercise. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their support, and urge adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which recognizes the benefits of mentoring and the thoughtful investments in mentoring programs that have been made across the country. I have spoken of the benefits of mentoring many times on this floor and I am pleased that the House is now considering this resolution. On Monday of this week, I was in Omaha, NE, with Governor Mike Johanns who signed a proclamation naming January as Mentoring Month in Nebraska. Other States have held big kickoff events in January to commemorate National Mentoring Month: Minnesota held a kick-off event at the State Capitol building on January 3 that included sports figures, political leaders, youth, and media. Delaware held an event announcing their commitment to recruit 1,000 new mentors for Delaware children. Ohio had a televised Outstanding Mentor Awards event that included State representatives, television personalities, and representatives from the schools and volunteer commission as presenters and judges. Boston had a roundtable on ``Who mentored you'' followed by a ``Mentoring Evening with the Boston Celtics.'' There are dozens of other events, including mentor recruitment fairs, training events, fun events for mentors and the children they mentor going on all around the country. In addition, last week, President Bush signed a proclamation naming January National Mentoring Month. In addition, a postage stamp promoting mentoring is now available through the United States Postal Service. So far, 29 States have officially created formal State mentoring partnerships, which are bipartisan collaborative efforts of public and private sector leaders to increase the number of young people with mentors, increase resources dedicated to mentoring, ensure quality standards, and expand mentor programming. Altogether, in the year 2000, state mentoring partnerships: Recruited over 66,000 mentors; Trained nearly 25,000 mentors; Provided technical assistance to over 3,300 organizations; Responded to nearly 15,000 inquiries; Leveraged over $11 million in new resources for mentoring; and Partnered with over 2,800 program providers. Two really excellent examples of States with a strong commitment to mentoring are California and Florida. In California, an executive order of Governor Pete Wilson launched the Governor's Mentoring Partnership in 1995. The initial $10 million investment made by the State has grown to $23.4 million per year, to invest in grants to quality local mentoring programs. Further, the initial goal of 250,000 young people in quality mentoring relationships has grown to 1 million. In addition, California's initiative allows release-time policy for State employees of 40 hours per year. Twenty- nine local mentoring partnerships have been created throughout the State and $800,000 is available per year for technical assistance. Finally, to survive into the future, a private sector foundation developed to secure private dollars for the initiative. In Florida, Governor Jeb Bush launched the Governor's Mentoring Initiative in 1999. It has a statewide goal to recruit 200,000 mentors. Governor Bush signed an executive order allowing all executive officer staff 1 paid hour of administrative leave, and the Florida Cabinet passed an administrative order allowing State employees 1 paid hour of administrative leave (as a result 1,800 mentored in May). The State of Florida has committed over $12 million in direct support of mentoring initiative through the legislature and a 13 percent increase to public schools of tutoring and mentoring. Florida has also created a Corporate Honor Role with over 60 businesses that support mentoring programs. I am pleased that Congress has made the commitment to support mentoring through authorization and appropriations for the Mentoring for Success Program, which is authorized at $17.5 million for fiscal year 2002. This tiny investment can reap huge dividends. Mentoring can make such a difference in the lives of young people who need the support of a strong role model in their lives. I hope that thousands of children can benefit from mentors thanks to the strong support offered for mentoring programs at the Federal, State, and local levels. Every child deserves a chance to succeed, and, for many, mentoring can make the difference. Please support this resolution to commend the hard work of so many making a difference in the lives of our Nation's young people.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his leadership, not only in the committee, but in the conference. It has been a long, arduous task. I also thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who I think has shown exceptional leadership throughout the process, and to the staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce which I understand basically has not been to bed for 2-3 days. Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new here and I have been told how contentious the Committee on Education and the Workforce is, but I saw little of that. I was impressed with the spirit of cooperation and the fact that this is truly a bipartisan bill. Something had to be done. When we think about the fact that 40 percent of our 4th graders are functionally illiterate, we rank something like 19 out 21 countries on international math scores. I think there are 3 or 4 things that I would like to mention that are particularly noteworthy about this particular bill. First of all, the issue of accountability. It has been my experience, unless there is accountability, there is no possible way to have excellence. In this bill we hold the teachers, the students and the schools to a relatively high standard of accountability. I think this will pay off. Secondly, I think the flexibility, the ability to use Federal funds at the local level in ways that the local school boards feel is important will help education and help our local agencies. Thirdly, small schools really have suffered in terms of competing for grants. They do not have grant writers. This allows schools with 600 students to receive at least $20,000 and to pool their funds. On the issue of mentoring, we find that many young people today are in dysfunctional situations. For children in dysfunctional situations, it is difficult to come to school with any ability to learn anything. We find that pairing a student with a caring adult who is an adequate role model certainly helps. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 1, and want to commend those who have been involved in authoring it.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3030, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2001, which passed the House by voice vote on December 11, 2001. The Basic Pilot is a joint pilot conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) in my home state of Nebraska, among others. This pilot, which started in November 1997, involves verification checks of the SSA and the INS databases of all newly hired employees regardless of citizenship. Unfortunately, the Basic Pilot program was scheduled to terminate on November 30 of this year. The agricultural economy of Nebraska's Third District relies heavily on immigrant labor. For the most part, I believe that employers across my district want to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work, and required employers to verify documents of new workers. However, a simple 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 INS and SSA databases, the Basic Pilot program allows employers to feel more confident about their new hire. H.R. 3030 will extend the Basic Pilot program for employers in Nebraska for two years. I thank my colleague, Representative Latham, for introducing this much needed extension, and I am pleased it passed the House on December 11, 2001.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, since the events of September 11, our country has witnessed a surge of patriotism and a desire to serve. This morning the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and I introduced the Call to Service Act which attempts to harness some of this energy. I would like to emphasize three parts of this act which are particularly noteworthy. Number one, the act provides service opportunities all across the country, particularly in rural and underserved areas. An example is incentives for teachers to stay in rural and underserved areas. Secondly, the act creates a new short-term military service category: 18 months of active duty and 18 months of reserve duty. These troops will provide security at airports, bridges, nuclear facilities, and our Nation's borders. They would also provide technical assistance in case of a health emergency caused by bioterrorism. Lastly, the Call to Service Act will create thousands of opportunities to provide mentoring and tutoring for children who are desperately in need of a caring adult role model. Senior citizens will be especially helpful in this endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the Call to Service Act.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, today the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and I introduced a bill called the National Call to Service Act. All of us are very aware of what happened on September 11; and as terrible as that day was and those events were, we have also seen some very positive things that have happened since. We have seen the resurgence in patriotism. We have seen people who are more cordial and certainly have a greater desire to serve the country. In an attempt to harness this energy, the Call to Service Act would enlist 250,000 people, young people and old people alike, to serve our country. There are three aspects I would like to touch on very briefly here today. First of all, rural and underserved areas often do not get much mention in a bill of this type. However, the National Call to Service Act does make sure that all areas of the country, particularly rural areas, are recognized. One example of this would be the teacher corps which would provide educational awards to attract and keep teachers in rural areas where it is very difficult to attract and keep teachers in such underserved areas. Another example would be public health programs where again rural areas are often neglected and underserved. The second area of the National Call to Service Act I would like to call attention to is homeland defense. We have many young people who would like to serve the country, but yet do not want to go into full- time military service. This bill would provide young people with an opportunity to serve 18 months of active duty and then 18 months in a reserve status. In return, they get an educational award at the end of their service. These young people would be used to guard vulnerable areas such as buildings, bridges, nuclear plants, airports and our borders. Also in the event of a national catastrophe involving bioterrorism, we need a great many people who could provide technical assistance in case of a health emergency. Thirdly, one of our greatest resources in this country at the present time that I believe is greatly underutilized is our senior citizens. We currently have a great number of children who lack a caring adult in their life. They have no role model. We have 18 million fatherless children in the United States today. Roughly one-half of our young people growing up in this country are growing up without both biological parents. Seniors can certainly fill this gap. They can serve as tutors and mentors for these young people. It has been very well established that a good mentoring program can reduce absenteeism from school by 50 percent, can reduce drug abuse by 50 percent, can reduce teenage pregnancy, violence and dropout rates significantly. We think that by utilizing our seniors more effectively, we can serve the country well, and particularly the youth of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), and he will discuss other aspects of the Call to Service Act.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new here, and I am surprised at the pace at which legislation moves at times. I am particularly amazed that legislation critical to the national well- being is not moving in the other body. Much has been said about inaction on the economic stimulus package and the energy bill. I would like to call attention this morning to a bill that has gone largely unnoticed and that is the farm bill. The agriculture economy has been in dire straits not for just the past 2 or 3 months, but for the last 5 years. We have been losing thousands of farmers each year, almost no young people are going into agriculture, and three-fourths of U.S. farms rely on off-the-farm income. A new farm bill is critical. The House farm bill passed this body 3 months ago. A farm bill passed this year will, number one, save thousands of farmers; and, number two, will ensure that we have an adequate budget. The other body needs to act and needs to act now on several pieces of legislation, but particularly on a farm bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I have been surprised and amazed that nearly all the debate over airport security has focused on one issue, and that is the federalization of airport screening personnel. In my mind, three critical issues have been largely ignored. These issues are probably more important than any other. Number one, the Senate bill applied to only 142 of the largest airports in the country. Hundreds of airports were not regulated. In the State of Nebraska only one airport would have been regulated under that bill. The compromise bill applies to all airports in the United States regarding standards and personnel. Secondly, the Senate bill did not address the screening of checked baggage. The compromise bill requires 100 percent screening of all checked baggage. Thirdly, the Senate bill did not regulate baggage handlers, caterers and mechanics. The compromise bill does. Closing these loopholes has been critical. The American public will be much safer due to these changes. I think it is very important that we pass this bill.