Tom Osborne

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to recognize Joe Paterno. Joe's records have been well documented with the tremendous career that he has had with over 52 years at Penn State. I would like to speak to the issue more as a friend. I have known Joe for roughly 25 years. We have been together often, both professionally and on social occasions. Our teams played against each other on five different occasions. So I have gotten to know him pretty well. I guess what I would like to focus on are some things about Joe that I have really appreciated as a fellow coach. First of all, there is the issue of longevity. Fifty-two years at one school is unheard of. I do not know of any other coach, even Amos Alonzo Stag, who has done anything to approximate that number of years, 36 years as a head coach. There is a lot of wear and tear in 52 years of coaching and in 36 years as a head coach. The local folks know you best, so being at one school for 52 years is very similar to being elected to public office 52 straight years, because that is kind of what goes on in the coaching profession. So he has been a survivor, he has been a great competitor over a long period of time. Secondly, Joe cared about his players. I think that is probably the greatest compliment that you can pay a coach, because at its worst, coaching can be manipulative, at its best it can be nurturing. Joe was somebody who genuinely cared about the well-being of his players beyond the playing field. We have talked at some length about graduation rates. There have been a lot of different figures thrown out here tonight. I do not know exactly what the figure is, but obviously he put academics first. If a player did not go to class, he did not get to play, and his academic record was tremendous. He always was very interested in decorum and discipline. His players always wore coats and ties when they went on the road. I do not believe that he ever had a team that I can remember that countenanced any kind of trash talking or insubordinate behavior on the playing field. I always appreciated that when we played against him. Then I guess also I would mention that Joe cared about the game of football. In the off season, it is easy to take some time off, but Joe always went to the NCAA meetings and went to the coaches' meetings. He was very instrumental in accomplishing some NCAA legislation that was really critical to college football, and of course the fact that he was recognized four times as Coach of the Year by his peers would indicate how much coaches esteemed Joe and appreciated his work. Lastly, I would just say that he is a quality person, fun to be around, with a good sense of humor, and a good family man. He and Sue had five children, three grandchildren. His generosity has been mentioned many times. In conclusion, I would just like to congratulate Joe, not only for achieving a great milestone, but more importantly, I would like to congratulate him for the way in which he accomplished this milestone. We appreciate him very much.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, as was stated by my colleague from South Dakota, the substitute amendment focuses primarily on larger airports, 142 of them. I represent a rural district that has only small Class IV airports, none of the 142 larger ones. These smaller airports are not subject to a uniform set of security standards under the substitute amendment. This is precisely what our problem is today, we have no uniform standards. The Young-Mica bill sets uniform standards for all airports, not just a select number. On September 11, the most prominent of the 19 hijackers boarded a plane at a smaller airport, flew to Boston, hijacked a plane and crashed it into the World Trade Center. Hijackers will enter the airport system at the weakest points, quite likely a small, relatively unsecured airport. Under the substitute, once past the security check point, a passenger can move freely throughout the system. The Young- Mica bill closes this loophole. Every airport manager in my district supports the House bill for the above reasons.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I along with others have been encouraged by the response to recent attacks on our country. We have seen a renewed patriotism, spiritual renewal in the country and a sense of unity. That unity has extended to the Congress. For the past 5 weeks, we have shown an exceptional spirit of cooperation here. In that light, I was really disappointed in yesterday's debate. I saw a return to business as usual, negativism and blaming. My experience over a long period of time has been that having a common goal, having a larger purpose, having a sense of mission causes negativism and personal ambition and divisiveness to fall away. Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time that this Nation and this body needs to pull together, it is now. So if our speech and our actions and motives are filtered through the lens of national interest, we will pull together. We need to do this over time and not just in the heat of the moment. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will keep the national interest first and foremost in our thoughts and mind and prayers as we move forward as a body.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for their efforts in crafting this bill. Madam Speaker, I represent a very large district that is roughly 350 miles by 250 miles. It is relatively sparsely populated. I think the largest community is about 35,000 and it goes down very quickly from that point on. And so many of the people in my district, as a matter of fact probably the majority, live some distance from the nearest institution of higher learning. Many of them live 100, 150 miles from the nearest college or junior college and so distance learning has become critical for them. Many nontraditional students, as my colleagues know, work full-time jobs. We also find that students in many small rural schools are able to get some specialized education that they cannot otherwise get through distance learning. So if you want to take advanced physics, French, German, or English as a second language, it is almost impossible for these students to get this type of education and instruction unless they do it through distance learning. We find that that has been very critical. Another thing that is very important in rural areas has been the issue of rural health care. We have a tremendous shortage of nurses. Everybody in the country has a shortage of nurses, but it is particularly critical in rural areas. And so we have found that nurses who are employed full time are able to take courses, upgrade their status, sometimes get their degrees, advanced degrees through distance learning, and that has been very, very important to us. Finally, let me just point this out. We have one university in the State of Nebraska that offers an accredited degree in pharmacy. And so if you are living out in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 450 miles away, and you want to get a degree in pharmacy and you have to drive to Omaha, that is about a 10-hour drive. That means every time you go sit in that classroom, you are taking 2 days off from work, one day to go down there, one day to come back, maybe sit there at night. Therefore, we find that this has been onerous. In this sense I think waiving the 12- hour rule is very important for people who have to drive long distances and particularly to get specialized degrees.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I appreciate the importance of the Everglades; however, I oppose the amendment. Sugar policy, contrary to what Members have been hearing, has been one of the most successful farm programs from 1991 to 2002. It has been the most successful. We have heard about $465 million in payment, that was for 1 year. That was the year 2000. Every other year, 11 out of 12 years, the sugar industry has paid the Federal Government more than it has gotten back, but we are labeling this as a boondoggle. I would like to also point out, as my colleagues have said, sugar prices have fallen 30 percent since 1996. This has been primarily due to dumping of sugar by Mexico since NAFTA was formed. In my State, the State of Nebraska, we have seen the fallout. Currently there have been 17 sugar factories that have closed in the last 4 or 5 years which represents roughly 40 percent of all of the factories in the country, in the United States. We currently have 750 producers in the State of Nebraska. In order to open their sugar factory, in order to survive, they have had to go together and form a cooperative and pay $185 to $220 per acre in order to keep this thing going. They are trying to save the sugar beet industry in Nebraska, in Montana, in Idaho, in Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I ask to have it explained to me why producers in those States need to be taxed 2 cents a pound on sugar additionally, and also have their loan rate reduced below the cost of production, in order to pay for renovation of the Everglades? We just went through a big debate where 10 or 12 or 15 States were possibly getting a disproportionate amount of commodities; and now we are talking about laying the wood to, to coin a term, to a group of States that have nothing to do with the Everglades to pay for the Everglades. This has already been taken care of. The 1994 Everglades Forever Act provided $685 million, and the 2000 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan also addresses this problem.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I appreciate the efforts of the gentlemen who have offered the amendment. A lot of work has gone into this. But I rise to oppose the amendment for several reasons. One reason is simply the issue of the Conservation Reserve Program. We currently have 36.4 million acres allocated to CRP. We are currently at the present time using only 33.5 million acres of CRP. The amendment would increase CRP to 45 million acres at the cost of several billion dollars. Why in the world would we increase CRP to 45 million acres when we are not even using the 36.4 million acres we now have allocated? The amendment would allow anywhere from $2 to $4 billion for conservation easements. These easements would result in land being put into conservation practices that can never be taken out again. Currently, the Federal Government in the United States controls, or owns, over 30 percent of the land in the Nation. We do not need the Federal Government controlling more land. I can tell you for sure that most private landowners do not want this to happen. Then, thirdly, I had mentioned the fact that the amendment as it is presented shifts money from those people who are involved in production agriculture to many individuals, not all, who are part-time farmers, who are people who own land for recreational purposes, and I do not think that is the purpose of a farm bill. Some people have said, well, we are just going to shift money from the wealthy 10 percent of farmers. In my State, Nebraska, that means anyone who has 500 acres or more in base crops. The average size of a farm in Nebraska is 900 acres. So what we are talking about here is taking money from medium-sized and some small farmers to pay the $19 billion that this bill is going to cost, $1.9 billion a year. Over $500 million will be lost in the State of Nebraska alone. I would like to explode a myth that I keep hearing floated around this body, which really begins to bother me, and, that is, that our farmers are getting wealthy by receiving checks at the expense of the general public. If that is true, why do we have thousands of people leaving farming each year? One thousand farmers a year leave my State of Nebraska. Currently, most of our farmers are telling their children not to go into farming. We have no young farmers left in the United States. Forty years of age is a young farmer. The average age of farmers in my district is 60 years of age. Three-fourths of the farms in our country rely on off- farm income. That means the farm wife and oftentimes the farmer, too, is driving 10, 20, 30, 40 miles to work and usually these are $6, $7, $8 an hour jobs so they can stay on the farm. If that is the case, then why in the world do we say that we are making people wealthy in farming at public expense? Lastly, just let me say this. There are 84 different groups that support the base bill. Eighty-four groups support the bill. Why is this that they support it? It is because of the process that we have gone through. Nearly every one of these groups has appeared before the Committee on Agriculture and they have been required to write the farm bill. They know what it takes, they know it is a disciplined procedure, they know it is very involved and that it is very difficult to do. They appreciate that process. It has been 2 years in the making. The two gentlemen who have authored this bill primarily are people who have spent their entire life in agriculture. They have been on the Committee on Agriculture through several bills. They know what they are doing. It is sort of deja vu for me, because I used to be in a business or in an enterprise where we would spend 90 hours a week preparing for a contest. Then we would have people come in and say, ``Well, we don't like the way you did it.'' And we would say, ``Well, what would you do?'' And they could never give you an answer. And so we have an administration that does not like it, but they cannot give us an answer. We have one of our leading financial newspapers that does not like the bill, but they do not have a bill. We do not know what the Senate is going to do, and so we better start acting now while we have a chance because there is not apt to be very much money next year for agriculture. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 2646, and really for several reasons. One is I have been very impressed by the process that the committee has gone through. This bill has been in development for 2 years. We have had hearings all across the country. We have had roughly 50 different agriculture, environmental, conservation groups appear before the committee. They have been asked to write the bill as they see it ought to be. So everyone has had input. It has not been done in a closet. I think that the chairman has been very fair in the way he has approached it. This is the only comprehensive farm bill in existence in this Congress or in the Senate as well. It deals with commodities; it increases conservation expenditures by 80 percent; it deals with rural development; research increased by 20 percent; and trade. There are some questions that have been raised already, and I am sure they will come up later today. Why do we have payments to wealthy farmers? In Nebraska, there are 54,000 farms. We have roughly nine entities that receive payments of $500,000 or more. These are multiple entities where you have aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters, so they are not single farmers that are receiving this amount of money. This is one out of every 6,000 farms that receives a large payment. The return on equity is roughly 4 percent. If you take the government subsidies out of farming, you go to a zero balance, or below zero. Three-fourths of our farms in the United States currently rely on off- the-farm income for survival, so we have both the farmer and the farm wife often working off farm and most of the time the farm wife, too. Some have said this is too expensive. Over the last 4 years, we have averaged $22 billion a year on agriculture. Much of that has been in emergency payments. In this bill, we will average $17 billion a year which is $5 billion less, and obviously we have to get away from emergency payments. Some have also said why do we provide a safety net for agriculture? In Europe, the average subsidy is $300 to $500 per acre because they have experienced what hunger is like at one point or another. In South America land is $300. The idea is that in the United States our subsidies are very reasonable, very cheap. I certainly urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, this past week the response of Congress and the American people has been tremendous. We have seen patriotism, bipartisanship, and spiritual renewal, which has been unprecedented in our lifetime. The focus of Congress has been on the best interests of the country, not on personal ambition or party superiority. The key question is this: What will our focus be next week, next month, and next year? The best thing that we can do as a Congress to combat terrorism is to, first, display unity of purpose, to serve the national interests above all else; second, provide total commitment, staying power over the coming months and years. This is not going to be a sprint; it is going to be an endurance race. And victory will not go to the swiftest, but to those who have the most resolve and the most commitment. Third, I think we must support the administration and the military and avoid micromanaging. We cannot become military and tactical experts from this floor. The Nation will be watching. Our enemies will be watching. Congress will set the tone, one way or another.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1900, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. I am particularly pleased to see language in the bill to provide positive youth development which includes mentoring. We often see money spent on building prisons, drug rehabilitation programs, hiring more police, and building youth correction facilities as money that is well spent. Money spent on prevention of juvenile crime, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, is often seen as less important and sometimes is perceived as being wasteful. It costs 25 to $30,000 per year to incarcerate a young person. If that young person stays in prison for life, it is more than $1 million. States are currently raising unwanted children at unprecedented cost. Drug addiction leads to other crime and a great social cost to those involved. Recidivism is very high. It is much more cost effective to prevent juvenile misbehavior than to attempt to correct behavior after the fact. One example is mentoring. According to ``Character Counts,'' mentoring reduces absenteeism from school by more than 50 percent, significantly cuts dropout rates, reduces drug abuse by more than 50 percent, certainly curtails teenage pregnancy, crime and violent behavior by significant degrees, and the cost is only about $400 per year, on the average, for a good mentoring program. So it is tremendously cost effective. The return is phenomenal in terms of the expense. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the fact that the bill provides more flexibility for the use of funds at the local level. I think all of us realize that money spent at the local level is spent much more effectively than money spent at the Federal or the State level. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their efforts, and strongly encourage passage of H.R. 1900.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. When examined in the context of history, yesterday will prove to be the most tragic single day in the history of the United States. It has been my experience that true character is revealed most clearly in times of crisis. As we recover from this event, our character as a Congress and a Nation will be demonstrated. There will be several parameters that will be particularly revealing. First, we can be divided, cast blame, point fingers and dissolve into partisanship, or we can unify, pull together, and strive to be one Nation. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. Unity of purpose is critical. Second, we can become hesitant and fearful or we can show great courage. The President's declaration that those who harbor terrorists will be treated as terrorists is significant. Our pursuit of those responsible for the attack must be focused and relentless. Yet we must be certain that innocent people are not harmed in the process. Third, adversity is a great teacher. We can learn from this event and become a more vigilant and better prepared Nation. It is critical that we correct flaws in our national security. It is equally important that these corrections are made without acrimony and in a constructive atmosphere. Fourth, we can demonstrate the vitality of our faith or we can yield to cynicism and despair. It has often been said that America is great because America is good. We were founded as one Nation under God, and our faith in God has undergirded our Nation since its inception. Hopefully an event such as this will underscore our reliance upon a power beyond our own and will lead to a renewed dedication to serving and honoring God with all that we have been given. May God's favor rest upon this Congress and upon this people.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Markey amendment. A week or so ago I was sitting in the Committee on Resources and someone made the statement that the United States has only 3 percent of the world's petroleum reserves. I thought about that and I thought, How do we know? We really do not know, because for 20 years, we have not explored. And so we do not know whether we have got 1 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent. Currently, we import 60 percent of our oil. Most of that oil is from OPEC. Currently, OPEC sets the market in the United States. Currently that is an irritant. They can cause the price to fluctuate. But let us take this hypothetical. Let us say we have a major war in the Middle East sometime in the next 3 or 4 years. Let us say that OPEC all of a sudden decides to cut off the spigot at some point or let us say OPEC decides to double the price. At that point, what do we do? We do not have an irritant at that point; we have got a national crisis. And where do we go? What do we do? The first thing that we are going to do is we are going to start scrambling, and we are going to try to figure out what we do have. Right now we do not know. I am not saying we have to drill, I am not saying that we have to extract oil, but we need to know what our resources are, in the gulf, in the 1002 area, we need to know precisely. Because this is something that can very likely happen in the near future. And so it is not a matter of destroying the area; it is a matter of exploring and knowing what is available to us.

Mr. OSBORNE. I hope I win a national championship for ethanol real quick like here. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cox-Waxman amendment. According to the California Air Resources Board, a California agency, replacing MTBE, about which we have heard a great deal today, with ethanol, will reduce carbon emissions by 530,000 tons a year, which is a 35 percent reduction. According to the California Energy Commission, a California agency, ethanol will reduce the price of gasoline two to three cents per gallon in California. And this is something I want to make sure everybody hears. The institute for Local Self-Reliance states that using California agricultural products, rice stocks, corn, fruit waste, California can produce between 500 and 900 million gallons of ethanol per year, worth $1 billion to their agriculture industry. They do not have to import ethanol. It is not a Midwest deal. It should not be an issue. The money stays in the United States. Ethanol produces over $4 billion of income for the farm economy in the United States. I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I recently heard a member of the Committee on Resources make an interesting statement. This individual said that the United States currently has only 3 percent of the known oil reserves in the world. The truth is that we really do not know. We do not know whether it has 3 percent or 5 percent or 15 percent or 20 percent, because for the last 10, 15, 20 years we have done absolutely no exploration. We have had no energy plan. Mr. Speaker, think about what corporation, what military unit, what athletic team would proceed without a plan and without knowing what its assets were. This is precisely what we have done here in the United States. I would really encourage people to support the President's energy plan because, number one, it provides a blueprint where there has been none, a plan of action that provides conservation practices and development of alternative fuels. It also provides for exploration which allows us to know what our assets and limitations are. In the event of an international crisis, it will be critical that we know what is there.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise this evening and discuss a topic that is important to all of us, which is our Nation's children. Two months ago, I was in a truck stop and I saw a young man playing a video game. I did not think much about it, but I went up behind him and watched what he was doing. He was shooting a laser gun, but he was not shooting at targets. He was not shooting ducks. He was shooting people. Every time he hit one, an arm flew off and the blood spurted, or a head flew off and the blood spurted. I was really impressed by the violence of the game. This young man was about 10 years old. Nowhere on that game was any type of rating indicating that this was inappropriate for a young person. As I saw that, I began to have a flashback to some of the school shootings we have had, and I realized that the United States currently is the most violent nation in the world for young people, with the highest homicide rate and the highest suicide rate of any nation in the civilized world. Our out-of-wedlock birthrate has risen from 5 percent in 1960 to 33 percent today. And so you say, what has happened here? Why has our culture unraveled in the way that it has? I am sure we can point the finger at a great many different reasons and causes, but I would say one of the chief causes is the influence of violent, explicit material in the entertainment industry. Because, you see, the average child spends 25 hours a week watching movies, playing video games and listening to recorded music and probably spends about an hour or less talking to his or her parents. That 25 hours has a huge impact. Some of it is benign, but much of it is really pernicious and very harmful. In September of 2000, the Federal Trade Commission prepared a reported entitled Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children. This is what they found, and I quote: ``The pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent movies, music and electronic games to children undermines the credibility of the entertainment media industries' parental advisory ratings and labels.'' In other words, they were doing this in violation of their own ratings. The entertainment industry at that time was warned to quit marketing adult material to children in violation of their own rating system. This was done in September of 2000. Then a follow-up study was done of the entertainment industry's progress in January of 2001. It was found that a year later some progress had been made but not very much. Whatever progress had been made was in ratings of movies, video games and their advertising, but practically no change at all had occurred in the ratings and in the advertising of the recording industry. So much of the rap music, much of the music that young people listen to, is relatively targeted to kids; and much of it is violent and very explicit. Since there has been relatively little progress in this area, H.R. 2246, the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001, has been introduced in the House. This is a companion to Senate bill 792. This bill simply requires the entertainment industry to advertise adult- rated material to adult audiences. Some people bring up the issue of the first amendment. They say, well, this is obviously a violation of free speech principles. Yet I think it is important that we think about this a little bit, because this bill does not in any way tell the entertainment industry what they write or what they produce. It does not edit content. It simply says this: If you are going to have a rating system, PG, R, adult, whatever it may be, then let us make that, if it is adult rated, that you do not advertise in preteen and teenage magazines and on movies that are G rated and do not market it on TV programs that are primarily aimed at children. It is very simple. It is not a violation of free speech. I think that we have really let our standards slip abysmally in this country. All of us who are adults have stood by and we have let it happen. We have watched it happen. I think that it is time that Congress steps up to the plate. I think Congress can do something about this. I think we can send a message to the entertainment industry. I hope that Congress will do the right thing and will support H.R. 2246, the Media Marketing Accountability Act.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the patient's bill of rights sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). In evaluating the two bills providing for patient protections before us, I had to ask myself which of these bills will improve health care without creating a crisis. According to the Census Bureau 2000 current population report, in my home State of Nebraska, 179,000 people are currently without health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the last thing I want is for this body to pass legislation that will significantly inflate the number of uninsured. I have received many letters and phone calls from small business employers in my district asking for leave from the high cost of providing insurance to their employees. Many employers in my district are facing double-digit increases in health care costs this year. The number of phone calls and letters has tripled in the last several weeks from these same employers. Mr. Speaker, the goal of a Patients' Bill of Rights legislation is to do two things: number one, reduce the ranks of the uninsured; and, number two, increase access to health care coverage. Unlimited lawsuits will accomplish precisely the opposite. They will drive up costs and increase the number of people without health care insurance. Mr. Speaker, please join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I thank him for his work, as others have, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his work, as well as other members of the committee, who did an outstanding job of working together. I certainly support H.R. 1 as it goes to conference. I think there were some graphic reasons for the reform. It is my understanding that the Federal Government has spent $80 billion on education over the last 10 years; yet we saw absolutely no improvement in dropout rates, no improvement in test scores, less performance in general, and roughly 60 percent of our fourth graders are not able to read at an adequate level. So I think H.R. 1 really represents significant improvement in educational policy. It does provide better measurement of students, more accountability for schools, and certainly greater local control. However, I would like to also underscore the idea that the best educational policy alone is not going to be the whole answer. And the reason I say this is that we can have the best teachers, the best curriculum, the best buildings, facilities; and still, if there is a high percentage of dysfunctional students from dysfunctional situations, we will have a very difficult time educating them because, number one, they will not get to school; and, number two, if they do get to school, they are not going to be in a very good frame of mind to learn anything. So one of the components of H.R. 1 that I have been very interested in, which has not been talked about a whole lot, is the mentoring component. This is something that is very important to the President. Mentoring reduces absenteeism from school by over 50 percent, decreases drug abuse by more than 50 percent, teenage pregnancy by 30, 40 percent, violence, and gang-related activities by a significant margin as well. So mentoring does work, and it is an important part of the educational component. So as we go to conference here on this bill, I hope that this will be preserved. I especially hope that the conferees will maintain the flexibility and the local control that we have written into the bill, particularly in regard to training the mentor. So again I would like to compliment those who have drafted and crafted this bill, and I want to wish them well as they go to conference.

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. Con. Res. 172, as amended.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 172) recognizing and honoring the Young Men's Christian Association on the occasion of its 150th anniversary in the United States, as amended.

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

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring House Concurrent Resolution 172 to the floor. This concurrent resolution recognizes and honors the Young Men's Christian Association, commonly known as the YMCA, on the 150th anniversary of its founding in the United States. YMCAs are very much a part of the American landscape and history. The organization began in London, England, in 1844. And in 1851, the first YMCA in America was established in Boston, Massachusetts. The YMCA's presence in America has grown steadily to serve nearly 18 million individuals, including 9 million children annually. I imagine many of us have participated in or benefited from YMCA's services. Over time, the YMCA has been associated with programs, including youth camping and the creation of volleyball and racquetball. Additionally, by the late 1990s, YMCAs were providing daycare for half a million children annually. The YMCA has provided learn-to-swim programs and has been connected to pools and aquatics for many years. Throughout all of these programs, the YMCA promotes the values of caring, honesty, respect and responsibility. Its commitment to these values can be seen in its history of wartime service dating back to the Civil War, its commitment to the physical and spiritual well-being of the poor and unemployed during the Depression, and its current efforts to teach and reinforce good character in youth through after-school sports and activities. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the YMCA on the anniversary of their 150 years of existence in America. They have a long history of exemplary service, and I believe we all benefit from the YMCA's existence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for yielding to me. The gentleman is very correct in the fact that we do share a great deal of interest in agriculture. We come from similar geographical regions; a lot of problems that are very common in South Dakota are very common in Nebraska. The gentleman really set a very fine backdrop as to some of the difficulties in agriculture, and so often as I travel around people will say, why do we need to help agriculture? Nobody helps the grocer and nobody helps the implement dealer. In coaching, if you do not win enough games, they fire you, so why should you get any help from agriculture? Mr. Speaker, I guess I would like to expand on some of the things that the gentleman said earlier that seemed to make some sense to me. First of all, in our country we spend only 9 percent of our discretionary income for agriculture; and in most nations around the world, we are probably spending anywhere from 30 percent to maybe 60 percent. Food is very cheap, relatively speaking, in the United States. Many people go to the supermarket and think it is very high, but compared to the rest of the world, it is very cheap. The farmer only gets a fraction of that 9 percent, probably 1 percent, 1\1/2\ percent at most of that 9 percent. So farm income is very marginal. The other thing I would like to point out is that food is critical. Everybody is very aware of the great agony and the anguish that we are currently experiencing in regard to energy. Certainly if OPEC decides to tighten the screws or double or triple our petroleum costs, this country could very well grind to a halt within 2 months to 3 months, but that crisis is nothing compared to what we would have if we had a food crisis. So one of the interesting things that I have noticed is that in Europe agriculture is subsidized to the tune of anywhere from $300, $400, $500 an acre, and some people say, why would they subsidize food to that degree or agriculture to that degree, because in the United States, the subsidy is roughly $60 to $70 per acre. I think the reason is that those folks have run out of food. They know what it was like in World War I, World War II, and they have experienced it. They realize that a good, safer food supply is critical to their survival. So there is no question that what our farmers and ranchers are doing is very, very important. The other thing I would like to point out is that, compared to most industry, agriculture is different. Let me flesh that out a little bit. First of all, if General Motors overproduces and they have got too many automobiles, they shut down a plant or an assembly line, and they bring their inventory into line with the demand. But in agriculture, you cannot do that. Farmers sitting out there cannot align his crop to world conditions. So one really cannot control the supply side like one does in most industry. The second thing is that agriculture is almost entirely dependent upon the weather. Most industry, of course, is somewhat independent of the weather. Usually, most of it is conducted indoors. So one can do everything right, and one can have everything going just perfectly, and a-20 minute hail storm finishes the whole year's work. Of course, the drought is the same way. So it is very dependent upon the weather. Then lastly, as compared to most industry, in agriculture the farmer does not set the price. So if one is manufacturing a product, or if one is selling in a grocery store, one sets the price. If people do not buy it, one lowers it. But the farmer essentially takes what he can get. He does not set the price. So there is some significant differences, and I think that is one reason why people have to understand that there needs to be a farm program. It is not something we can simply throw open on the world market and hope that we will survive. Lastly, just let me mention this. If we do try to go to the low-cost producer, we did that in energy. Back in the 1970s OPEC would sell us oil for $3, $4, $5 a barrel. So we said, okay, that is great. We cannot produce it, we cannot pump it for that amount. So we are going to cap our wells and quit exploring, and we are going to farm our energy, our petroleum supply out to OPEC. We did that, and they took it gratefully. Of course, now that price has gone up as high as $35 a barrel, and they are in control, and we have got 60 percent of our dependence on petroleum going to OPEC. We can do the same thing in agriculture very quickly. We can say, okay, in Brazil one can have two growing seasons. Land is 2- or $300 an acre. One has no environmental regulations. Labor is cheap. So we are not going to help our farmers, and we are going to let the low-cost producer win. Then in that case, we will be dependent on overseas sources for our food supply. I do not think we can allow that to happen in terms of national security. So, basically, those are some of my thoughts as to why we need a farm program. I know that the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is interested in many different aspects of this issue.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the preceding comments from the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Kansas. Mr. Speaker, we talk about the new farm bill, and many times people hold out great promise on the farm bill, and it is not the whole answer. It will hopefully provide a safety net which will allow people to continue in farming. We have been losing 10 percent of our farmers every year. Sometimes people say you are keeping the inefficient people in business, but all the inefficient people are long since gone. All of the people left have skill and ability. As I talk to the farmers in the Third District of Nebraska, so often I hear the statement, we do not want a subsidy, we want profitability. We want to make our living in the marketplace. I think other than a safety net, there are some things that we need to focus on. Of course, Freedom to Farm had some good ideas behind it. One is basically the philosophy of Freedom to Farm was that the farmer would produce all that he could. The farmers produced fence row to fence row, and the government's part of the bargain were that they were going to provide the markets, make sure that we had free trade, fair trade. And I am sad to say that part of the bargain was not kept. We did not fully fund market access programs, foreign market development, and we continued to have foreign trade sanctions, trade embargoes. We have great hope for the WTO and NAFTA. We would like to see tariffs on our goods at 40 to 60 percent come down to 10 percent, which is basically what we are charging goods coming into our country. In theory, these two organizations, NAFTA and World Trade Organization sound good, but most of the farmers I talk to are not happy about implementation. They do not feel that we have a level playing field and that we have been aggressive enough in our trade practices. We need to open up markets and fully fund the programs that we have in place to help our marketing procedures. The President needs fast track authority, the ability to negotiate quickly trade negotiations. In the last few years, we have had over 200 international trade agreements drawn up, and the United States has participated in 2, 2 out of 200. So the President needs to be given this authority. This is something that will be coming down the road fairly quickly. We have touched on value-added agriculture. That is a big part of profitability. We have talked about ethanol, which will add 15 to 20 cents per bushel of corn; and ethanol could triple with MTBE going by the wayside. We currently have 62 ethanol plants in the United States, and that should double or triple in the United States. We have 200,000 people employed in the ethanol industry, and $4.5 billion a year being brought in by ethanol. And again, those numbers could double or triple very quickly, which would be a huge shot in the arm for agriculture. Co-ops need to spring up. Some are occurring right now, where the farmer participates in all levels of the process, and, of course, makes more profit in the process. We think that value added is going to be very important. Let me just touch on one other thing, and that is the research issue. So far the advantage that we have had in the United States has been technology in agriculture and infrastructure, the ability to move our products. As the gentleman from Kansas mentioned earlier, the infrastructure advantage is quickly disappearing. Other countries are beginning to move their products equally as well. So the thing that leaves us with that is an edge in technology. So often groups that come before the Committee on Agriculture and present their ideas, research is sometimes left out. It is left out of the equation. For instance, in ethanol alone right now we can get a better conversion rate. It takes so much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol. The ethanol that is produced produces more energy than what it takes to produce the ethanol; but that could be double or even triple. We could use switchgrass and all kinds of products. We could plant switchgrass on CRP acres, which would make CRP more profitable. We need to keep working on BSE. Foot and mouth disease. Karnal bunt was mentioned earlier in regard to the wheat industry. This is a great concern. So I am a great advocate of making sure that we can ensure and maintain our edge in technology. Of course, one last comment would be simply the fact that we are losing young people and losing population in rural areas. The reason we are losing them is that they are going places where they can get more money. And the reason that they can make more money is there is more technology and more telecommunications. So the digital divide has hit rural America very hard. People will tell you that roughly 90 percent of new industry is not willing to go into an area unless there is broadband service and high- speed Internet access. We have to do everything that we can to make sure that the rural America has the ability to provide those kinds of services which will allow us to keep more of our young people at home. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Dakota for allowing me to participate in this dialogue.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss our current energy problem. It has taken more than 20 years to develop; and obviously, there is no quick solution. But I guess the good news is that we have a plan, where before we had none. It provides for the conservation of energy, exploration and development of new energy sources; and it presents a plan for alternative fuels. I would like to just briefly mention the Gasoline Access and Stability Act, which has recently been introduced and I think can be part of the solution. This has been sponsored by the House leadership and the entire Nebraska delegation has signed on. This act reduces 45 blends of gasoline to 3. Currently, our refineries have to shut down totally when a new blend is introduced, and they have to clear their pipes. This is very time consuming and expensive. This bill would require 2 percent oxygenated fuel in the summer and 2.7 percent oxygenated fuel in the winter. The benefits would reduce green house gas emissions by 25 to 30 percent, save motorists up to 12 cents per gallon of gasoline, protect consumers from price spikes, and certainly reduce our independence on foreign oil.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution introduced by Representative Crenshaw to establish American Youth Day. As a long-time teacher, mentor, and coach of young people, I have seen the difference that caring adults can make in the lives of our young people. I believe that the principles set forth by H. Res. 124 will help our country to provide a better environment for the development of young people. This resolution would encourage communities to set aside a Saturday prior to the beginning of the next school year in order to participate in activities that highlight our children and share their successes in our communities where there is a commitment to youth. One of the commitments our communities can make to youth is to provide support through mentoring. A mentor can make an enormous difference in the life of a child by providing a strong positive role model for that child. I have known many young people who testify that they have become the successful people they are today because caring, involved, qualified mentors took the time to get involved in their lives. I was recently able to help include a mentoring program that I introduced in H.R. 1, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This program would provide $50 million in competitive grants to mentoring programs across the nation that work to link children with mentors who have undergone background checks and are interested in working with youth. Although ESEA and the appropriations process is far from over, I hope that several hundred thousand young people will benefit from this grant program. This resolution would also serve to highlight the accomplishments of hundreds of youth organizations around the country--including 4-H and others--that work full-time, year round to provide healthy opportunities for young people. Additional investment in programs that serve young people and provide them with healthy, constructive activities--the type of investment encouraged by the Younger Americans Act, of which I am a cosponsor--would help extend opportunities to even more of our country's youth. Investment in our children is probably the best investment we can make. While a child's potential and self-esteem cannot be measured by a bottom-line, the cost of incarceration and absenteeism far outweighs the cost of investing in youth programs. In my state of Nebraska, it costs $21,219 per year to incarcerate an offender in the Nebraska State Penitentiary and $29,200 per year to house an arrested juvenile. Supporting our young people as they navigate the challenging terrain of becoming adults is such a worthwhile and rewarding effort. H. Res. 124 is a great first step. I strongly support H. Res. 124 to create an American Youth Day and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.