Tom Osborne

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My colleagues, this is what the drought map looked like the early part of the summer. Unfortunately, that is about what the drought map has looked like for 5 years. There have been minor changes here and there, but many climatologists have said this is a 500-year drought. It is not one that is every 30 or 40, but a 500-year drought. In many cases, it has been worse than what we encountered in the 1930s. So what we find now is that almost all of the reservoirs in this part of the country are down to 15, 20, 25 percent full, and many will be empty next year. So irrigators as well as dry land people are paying the price. Mr. Speaker, this has been a monumental problem and a 1-year drought is bad, but when you have 5 years, the amount of crop insurance you can buy goes down each year. So as a result, crop insurance does not do it. People have lost equity each year now for 5 years, and ranchers have not had pastures. Therefore, they have had to sell their breeding herds, and as a result, many of them are in pretty desperate shape. So it seems that nobody likes drought relief. Many people say that it is not a natural disaster. But it is as much a natural disaster as any other. You cannot stop it. You cannot predict it. It is like a hurricane, a flood or whatever. I would prefer that we do not have any offsets. I have great admiration for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the way he has tried to approach this. But I have made enough phone calls and done enough talking around here to realize this is the only way we are going to get it done. So we greatly appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) has made an effort here. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture has done a good job here, and so we do have a possibility now to get $3 billion out of the conservation and security program. It appears to me this is the only workable solution we have. It may not be the perfect, but it is the workable, and therefore, I recommend that we support this rule, and we support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both gentlemen from Texas for their work in this regard as well as the chairman.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We have stated very clearly the need for drought assistance. Some have said this is a 500-year drought, and it certainly is in most areas. Reservoirs are depleted. One part of Nebraska had 1 inch of rain in 12 months, no pastures. So it is badly needed. There has been a lot of argument tonight about the process, and I must say that I agree with some of those arguments. There is some validity. Two years ago Mr. Thune and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and I went to the White House two or three times, when we had this same problem. And we were told unequivocally that there would be no aid without an offset. And so that is where we find ourselves again tonight. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. I am just saying that is the reality. And I agree with many of the things the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has said, but I guess I have to weigh that against getting drought relief for some farmers that I think need it very badly, and this is the only option that I see at the present time that is workable, that will work. So I admit to discomfort, but it is the best we can do. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 871, a bill originally introduced by Representative Bereuter of Nebraska, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 759) commending the Festival of Children Foundation for its outstanding efforts on behalf of children and expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the designation of a ``Child Awareness Month,'' as amended.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 759.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 759 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). This resolution honors the Festival of Children Foundation for its outstanding efforts on behalf of children. Children represent the Nation's future, and numerous individuals and organizations across the United States devote precious time, energy and resources to enrich that future by helping children advance their hopes and dreams and to realize their aspirations. The Festival of Children Foundation is one such organization that has experienced overwhelming success serving the needs of children in the Orange County community. Through collaboration with numerous charities, the foundation seeks to improve the lives of children and families living in the community by fostering education, community involvement and the arts. Instead of operating independently, charities are able to pool both their resources and ideas to better serve the children and families of southern California. The Festival of Children Foundation expands the reach of the nonprofits in their community, and their efforts on behalf of children should be emulated. I would like to take this opportunity to commend their work on behalf of children and also their efforts to increase awareness of children's special needs. I thank my colleague from California for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, several of my colleagues and I journeyed to Baghdad and returned, and I would just like to make a few observations. Obviously, this is a very intense time in Iraq as the elections approaches, but I had three observations that I think were somewhat meaningful. Number one, we were tremendously impressed by the morale and the attitude of our soldiers. One would say, well, how in the world could that be? It is 110, 115 degrees every day, body armor, helmets, very difficult work, some danger, considerable distance from family. I guess the main reason that we felt we were observing this was there seemed to be a very strong sense of mission, a very strong sense of purpose and accomplishment. One thing that I often heard from the soldiers was this: they said, you know, it seems like there are two wars over here. There is the one that we see on CNN: we see the IEDs, individual explosive devices; we see the car bombs; we see the beheadings. But the part of the story that we think is meaningful is not being told. They said, the thing that we see is that in education, 2,500 schools have been renovated, 30,000 teachers have been trained, there is an 80 percent increase in attendance in schools, and most of that is girls who have not been going to school at all under Saddam Hussein. Health care, 240 hospitals operating, 1,000 clinics, 90 percent of the children are currently vaccinated, and this again is something that had not occurred before. So health care has improved. Infrastructure is getting better. Water supply, power, sewage. It still needs improvement, but it is doing better, and of course the provisional government and the June 30 hand- off. So what they were saying is please make sure the people in the United States understand that there is more going on than what many times they are hearing about. The second thing that I thought was somewhat optimistic is that the Iraqis are providing more and more security. The goal is to train 270,000 Iraqis; 135,000 police; 100,000 Army and National Guard; and then 32,000 border guards. Right now we are a little bit more than halfway there. We are making excellent progress. So in Najef, not long ago, Iraqi troops led the charge and, along with Ayatola Sustani, calmed a very dangerous situation. So we see progressively more and more operations with Iraqis taking the lead. The third thing that I would say that was very encouraging to me is that in talking to the Iraqis, they very much want the elections. If the Iraqis do not care or if they do not want elections, then obviously the whole thing that we are doing is for naught. I talked to an Iraqi woman today and I asked her, I said, are the Iraqis willing to line up and take the risk on Election Day, and she said, without question we will have a tremendous turnout. So Prime Minister Allawi told us last week, and this was confirmed on our trip, that roughly 15 out of 18 provinces are sufficiently secure right now to maintain elections, and the other two or three are coming around. Splinter groups who have been primarily terrorist-oriented in the past are now becoming politically active. They are beginning to realize that if they do not become part of the political process, they are going to be left out. So a lot of things are changing very rapidly. Iraqi women will tell you this, that they see their future as being much brighter. So when there is hope, I think there is a good chance. So if we pull out, as many are currently advising, we will tell the families of the 1,000 soldiers we have lost that they have died in vain, and I do not think we can afford to do that. Secondly, we will have broken our promise to the Iraqis. We have told them that we will absolutely not do that, and many of them have trusted us. So if we pull out now, literally tens of thousands of Iraqis are going to lose their lives and will be sacrificed because of our duplicity. Thirdly, I think if we show vulnerability as a Nation; and if we show that we do not have resolve and that we will not see something through, and if terrorists can steer our agenda here, we become more and more vulnerable to terrorist activities. So I do not think that we can afford to do this. So at this point, as I see it, and I think some of those who were on the trip would also say that the only viable exit strategy is to win. When we say to win, we mean that we will stay the course until the Iraqis themselves are able to secure their country and be able to govern their country. This is not going to be easy, but we think it is doable. We were encouraged by what we saw.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, we should be very proud of our constitutional heritage, and feel comforted by the fact that we live in the world's oldest constitutional democracy. We celebrate Constitution Week knowing that the principles of a free democracy are emulated by nations throughout the world. It is extremely important that our young people understand and appreciate the time-honored principles that the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other documents embody. For this reason, effective instruction in civics and government in our schools is necessary. Last year, the first Congressional Conference on Civic Education was held. One of the positive outcomes of this conference was the establishment of state delegations to return to the state to enact specific policies designed to restore the civic mission of our schools. I would like to recognize Nebraska's delegation for their leadership in working to design a plan to improve civic education in our state. Nebraska's plan will result in the formation of the Civics Nebraska Partnership, a coalition of educators, public officials, agencies, and organizations committed to improving the level of civic learning in our state. Initially, Civics Nebraska will measure civic aptitude and attitudes of Nebraskans and provide a clearinghouse of resources for classroom teachers. It is hoped that the partnership will help bridge the gap that sometimes exists between the education and government sectors when it comes to civics education. I look forward to the success of Civics Nebraska and want to recognize the efforts of those who are working hard to improve civics and government education.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I have supported several tax reducing measures since coming to Congress, including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003. These two bills, along with a number of other measures, decreased the marriage penalty, increased the child tax credit, and delivered immediate relief to all taxpayers. Without H.R. 1308, the tax burden on a family of four earning $40,000 would increase by $915 in 2005. This legislation ensures that families will continue to enjoy the tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003 for years to come. Unfortunately, I was not able to vote on the conference report for H.R. 1308, the All-American Tax Relief Act. Along with a number of my colleagues, I had previously scheduled a congressional delegation trip to the Middle East and Iraq. If I could have voted on H.R. 1308, I would have voted ``yea.'' However, I felt confident that my colleagues in the House share my support for extending these family-friendly provisions, preventing a tax increase of $109 billion on America's families.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for yielding me this time, another member of the Committee on Armed Services. As was mentioned, on December 25, 1941, it was rumored that there would be a troop train coming through North Platte, Nebraska and would have a number of North Platte area troops on it. So it being Christmas Day, a great number of residents of the community decided that they ought to go down and meet the train and provide some food and show them they were appreciated on Christmas Day. It turned out that the troops were not from Nebraska, as was mentioned earlier, but rather from Kansas. So I guess the citizens of North Platte were a little bit disappointed. But at the same time, they saw the appreciation and they saw the need for this. So Rae Wilson asked the citizens of North Platte to do this for all troop trains. Many people are not familiar with the geography of Nebraska, but North Platte is a major railroad center. And at that time, most of the trains moving from the East Coast to the West Coast went through North Platte, Nebraska. So this was a massive undertaking. And from that day, December 25, 1941, through April 1, 1946, a span of about 5\1/2\ years, the members of North Platte and surrounding communities met every troop train that went through there, and that averaged sometimes as many as 23 trains a day; and this went on day and night. So sometimes the troop train arrived at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and yet there were people there to meet them. As was mentioned earlier, about 55,000 volunteers served in this effort, and this is somewhat notable in that North Platte itself had a population of 12,000. This is a sparsely populated area. So probably the whole population within 100 miles of North Platte did not much exceed the 55,000. So people from northern Kansas, from Colorado, from that part of Nebraska served in this rather massive effort over the time. It was mentioned what the daily amount of food dispensed was, and I thought I would flesh this out a little bit and give the Members a monthly total. This was documented at one time. It is estimated that each month troops consumed 40,000 cookies, 30,000 hard-boiled eggs, 6,500 doughnuts, 4,000 loaves of bread, 3,000 pounds of meat, 450 pounds of butter, 1,300 pounds of coffee, 1,200 quarts of ice cream, and so on. And as was mentioned earlier, again, this was done during a time of rationing. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I am old enough to remember that time. And at that time I think the speed limit was 45 miles an hour to conserve gasoline. One could only get so many gallons of gasoline per week. They could not buy an automobile. Butter was rationed. Meat was rationed. So these people were really donating items from their own families' allotment and using their own gasoline to do this because there was not one dime of Federal money that was involved in this effort. So it was rather interesting. The other thing that was done in this particular effort was that at that time there were no pay phones around; so if a soldier wanted some family member called, these people would take down the number and they would call the family and say, We met so and so, he was coming through here, he is fine, or mail letters and so on. So these things were all very important to the servicemen. I wanted to introduce this resolution for two reasons: number one, as we know, many of the veterans of World War II are not going to be with us much longer; and also those who served at the North Platte Canteen, many of them have passed on and a few of them are still left, and they are not going to be with us much longer either. So we wanted to recognize them while there was still time. And this has been certainly memorialized in a book that has been written, a television documentary that was done as well. And then the second reason was I wanted to simply point out what unity of purpose can accomplish. Right now we are locked in a struggle, and the question is, How unified are we? What direction are we going as a country? And at that time in 1941, December 25, we were certainly not a military power. We certainly were not anywhere near what the Soviet Union at that time or certainly Germany or Japan were militarily. And yet within about a year and a half, we became the strongest military in the world; and within 4 years we had pretty much taken control in World War II. So I would just like to mention that Rosy the Riveter, the Victory Gardens, and all of those things that took place at that time were critical. And it was so critical that everyone pulled together, everyone was willing to sacrifice, everyone was willing to give up something from their own family, from their own well-being to serve the troops. So we appreciate the support of this particular resolution.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3369. There is no question there has been a huge increase in personal injury lawsuits targeted at rulemaking bodies in recent years, such as Pop Warner, Little League, high school athletic associations and on and on. Sports-governing authorities' premiums have risen, as has been stated previously, from about 120 percent to about 1,000 percent. At least one known carrier has completely dropped providing general liability coverage, while three others are looking at nonrenewing all policies. So this is a concern, and so the rulemaking bodies will be driven out of existence if they, number one, cannot afford the premium or, number two, if they just simply cannot get coverage. This would take roughly 7 million high school athletes right off the field, and I think that the good that is done by college athletics and amateur sports far outweighs what we might see in terms of lawsuits. The legal attack against all rulemaking bodies relies on the presumption that rules should eliminate all risk in athletic competition. In 1905, the NCAA was formed to eliminate the flying wedge. Recently, in football, a person cannot block with their head. They cannot chop block; clipping; practice in sweat clothes during the early season; water breaks; spring practice rules and so on. Yet if some young man decides to go out and tackle with his head down or has a spinal injury, there is absolutely no way we can prevent that. The rules have all been written, that I know of, that would provide safety in football. So accidents will happen. So this rule, I think, is a good one because it would allow the rulemaking bodies to be protected from frivolous lawsuits by raising the standard of liability from negligence to gross negligence. And if we do not do something like this, a great number of young people will simply be taken off the field. I do not think that is a viable alternative.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to indulge in a little change of pace here. This is an issue that is completely nonpartisan, which, hopefully, my friends on the other side will appreciate. What we are looking at here is a drought map. As most people know, Florida has been hit by two hurricanes recently, and we have a third one that may hit them and may hit Alabama. This is an unbelievable set of circumstances. The Congress quickly sent $2 billion in relief to Florida which is certainly appropriate, and we have a request for another $3 billion. What I would like to do is to call attention to another disaster which has occurred and this is the drought. This is the drought monitor map which was drawn up in 2002, and you can see that the eastern seaboard had considerable drought. Most all of the western States were badly impacted. We will take another look now, 2 years later and we see a very similar picture. The eastern seaboard is certainly improved but most of the West is still gripped by a drought that is one of the worst in history, and that has been going on now for 5 years. So what has happened is that any dry land crops in these areas in here have been relatively nonexistent now for 5 years. And so these farmers' equity has been eaten up to the point where many of them now are being driven off the land. Many of their ranchers have had their pastures destroyed, sometimes for 4, 5 years in a row. We have had some livestock feed assistance which has been very helpful, but, again, some of them have had to sell some of their herd, some have had to sell all of their herd, and some have been driven out of business. The other thing that is pretty dire at this point is that most of the reservoirs in the West are anywhere from 15 to 25 percent full which means the irrigators have been receiving half, some of them none of their water for the last couple of years. And in most of these reservoirs they will simply run out of water in the next couple of years. So it is a very difficult situation. And many have said, well, a drought is not quite like a hurricane. It is not quite like a fire. It is not quite like a flood or a tornado because those things come very quickly but a drought takes time to develop and, therefore, you have time to adjust and, therefore, we really should not give any emergency aid for this type of activity that we see on this map. But actually if you plant your crop in May and you do not get any rain for the next 3 or 4 weeks you do not have a crop. Now 2 or 3 or 4 weeks is pretty quick, so many of these people have been suffering from a drought that has not been of their own doing and has certainly come on relatively quickly. I would like to call attention to one other chart here. Many people have said, well, it is unreasonable to ask for any drought assistance with this situation here because of the slowness of the oncoming of the drought. The thing that I would like to call attention here is what has happened with the farm bill. The farm bill was supposed to cost roughly $50 billion over the first 3 years of its existence, and we can see that in 2002 the projected cost was $14.3 billion. Actually it cost $13.2 billion. In 2003, a year ago it was supposed to cost 18.6. It actually cost 12.1, and the projection for this year which we are about through the fiscal year was $17.5, and the actual cost will be about 10.1. So what this means is the projected cost was to be $50 billion. In actuality it will be about $35 billion. So this is one of the few government programs that I know of where the cost is considerably less than what it was supposed to cost. And so you say, where did that $15 billion come from? What happened here? Well, part of it is the drought. And here is the logic. The drought has reduced production. When you have reduced production it causes prices to go up. When prices go up, you have fewer farm payments because you have no LDP's. You have no countercyclical payment. So much of this $15 billion difference is due to the drought. And so my suggestion is that Congress think about this a little bit as we think about Florida, and we should, as we think about wildfires, and we should. Let us think a little bit about what is going on in the West, those 6 or 7 or 8 western states which have been hit so hard. It is my understanding that the other body has acted this evening and have appropriated or have added on roughly $2.9 billion for the drought. I am hopeful that this body that the House will follow suit and will consider this. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to the situation that we think is fairly serious in the western part of the United States and something that has been ongoing for the last 5 years.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his help on this bill. I am going to suspend my otherwise prepared remarks and try to address some of the concerns that we have heard here this evening about this bill. Mr. Speaker, 4,000 young people die per year from suicide, and I guess what we are being told here is we do not know of anything that will work, and this bill really may make things worse, and we may actually cause some people to take their lives. I would just like to mention what the bill is all about. Part 1 provides grant funding to States for development of a youth suicide prevention and intervention strategy. That does not necessarily mean that you go in and show films to kids of other kids killing themselves. It does not mean that you go out and hire a bunch of counselors to go into schools and tell kids do not kill yourselves. It may mean that you work with coaches and teachers to identify the signs, because there are very, very few suicides which occur where there are not some indications. It may be a term paper, a theme, it may be a comment in the locker room. So we can build awareness with those people who work with young people, and that is important. Some young people do not know that steroids are a leading cause of suicide. This is an education issue. Steroid precursors can be bought over the counter and cause untold number of suicides each year. People are not aware of that. This bill provides for screening programs that can identify mental health and behavioral conditions. There are certain medical conditions out there that make people more subject to suicide. It may be a personal tragedy that has occurred; it may be a friend who has committed suicide. These people can be watched more closely. There may be things which could be done. You do not have to go tell them, do not kill yourself. Lastly, the bill establishes the Federal Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center. People have said here, we do not know what works. That is what this center is for, to find out what strategies do work. That is the whole thing about it.

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I am sorry I had to be rushed earlier, and I thank him for giving me this extra time. In regard to the expeditious manner in which this bill has progressed, it actually started back in July. I know that there has been a tremendous amount of interplay and work over the last 6, 7, 8 weeks. There has been a lot of give-and-take and a lot of valuable discussion. The thing that I did not get to talk about that I wanted to mention is that from 1952 to 1995, we have three times the number, the rate of suicides, in this country as we did in 1952. This is a national epidemic. So to say that we really should not do anything or we should really go slow for some reason rubs me the wrong way. The other aspect of the program that I wanted to mention today is the college mental health services. A survey regarding college students indicated that 60 percent of college students feel hopeless. More than 40 percent report being depressed. And 9 percent are suicidal. On the college campus, we have tremendous problems with this issue. You do not have to again go to these students and say, do not kill yourself. We do not have to show them films, but we do have to persuade them that it is not unmanly or it is not weak on the part of a woman to express your problems, to go to a mental health service, to talk things out, to be open with what is bothering you. These are the kinds of things that need to happen. Part of this funding will simply go to enhance the mental health services on the college campus. This is not money that will be badly spent. This is something that is desperately needed. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his work.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, there seem to be three major topics which will be determining factors in this fall's elections, and these are: the conflict in the Middle East, the economy, and values in cultural issues. I will attempt tonight to discuss each one of these areas, hopefully in a somewhat accurate, factual, and dispassionate manner. I will start with the situation in the Middle East. One thing that we often notice as we watch the nightly news is relatively little discussion of Afghanistan; and by almost any measure, Afghanistan has been a major success. The Taliban has been removed from power, the Soviet Union left Afghanistan after several years of war, unable to conquer the Taliban; and we took them out in a matter of weeks with a loss of roughly 100 troops. The terrorist training camps have been destroyed. Terrorist funding in Afghanistan has been largely disrupted, and the terrorist leadership has been rendered largely ineffective throughout that whole country, which is roughly the size of Texas. The country is reasonably stable and has been stabilized with a very small coalition force of approximately 15,000 troops, again in a country the size of Texas. This is a remarkable achievement. The Loyal Jurga, the constitutional convention, has been accomplished. Even with all of the rival warlords and tribal factions, they did come up with a constitution that is pro- democracy and seems to represent all factions within the country. So it was a remarkable achievement. Karzai is certainly a very effective leader. They will have general elections on October 9, and certainly Karzai will have some opposition. But if he is elected, and I think that he will be, we will have a very powerful ally. And I think most people would have to say that this was an almost unheard of accomplishment in a period of a little over a year and a half. So Afghanistan has been a truly amazing accomplishment and one that I think that we can be very pleased with. There are still some negatives there. There still is somewhat of an opium crop, and that has to be dealt with. A few hundred Taliban and al Qaeda forces are still active, but most have been driven back into the mountains. Iraq, of course, is another subject; and we have heard that discussed by two or three other speakers on the House floor this evening. There is no question that there is a great deal of controversy about weapons of mass destruction, and there is no question that some of the intelligence that we have received regarding weapons of mass destruction has not been accurate. I would say that most of the Members of this House at one time or another were invited over to the Pentagon, and we went over in groups of 10 or 15 or 20 or 30, and we were shown aerial reconnaissance photos of Iraq. Most of these were satellite photos. They were remarkably clear. You could read a license plate from outerspace because of the clarity. We were told, and I believe that the people giving us the briefing absolutely believed what they were saying, that this building here was where anthrax was being created, this was where foot and mouth disease was being experimented with, these trucks were going here, and these ammunition dumps were here and so on. The problem was that our intelligence on the ground was very ineffective. We were relying heavily upon Iraqis for our information, and many of those Iraqis had an axe to grind. They wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein; and, therefore, whether they deliberately did it or not, I do not know, but obviously some of the information that we received was not very accurate. So this has been certainly a major concern. However, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and most U.N. countries had very similar intelligence, and that is why we had 17 United Nations resolutions based on the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So this was certainly not a miscalculation that was done by the United States alone. One of the main difficulties that we had was that intelligence spending in our country was cut during the 1990s; and, as a result, the expenditures on intelligence were roughly cut in half, and that certainly reduced our capabilities. So there is plenty of blame to go around, and many people have been busy pointing the finger over the last several months. However, the key issue at this point is not what happened in the past, but where do we go from here. While I was in the Middle East, I had a conversation with a young captain from Nebraska, my home State, and this young man's name was Christ Ferdico; and he said two things that made sense to me. First of all, he said, you know, it is better that we fighter terrorists here in the Middle East than fight them in the United States. So he was saying that by being on offense, we have occupied the terrorists' attention and resources, and there is no question that we have. Some people have said we have made the world a more dangerous place. But, obviously, the financial resources, the military resources, a lot of the planning has been diverted from this country and other countries to the conflict in the Middle East, so we have not had an attack in this country since 9/ 11. It does not mean we will never have another attack, but it certainly means that we have, to some degree, diverted some of the attention from this country. The second thing this young man said to me which I found to be interesting and I believe to be true, he said, I hope the American people do not lose patience. We tend to be a very impatient Nation. We want our problems solved yesterday. We sometimes do not want to pay a very great price to achieve something. And so the impatience of the American people certainly is a concern. Again, we heard some of that debate earlier from some of the other speakers. We have lost at this point approximately 1,000 soldiers in Iraq. One is too many, and every one of those soldiers from my district that have been lost I have attempted to call their wives, their husbands, their parents and talk to them personally. It has been very interesting because I thought at some point I would run into bitterness or run into acrimony. Certainly there was sorrow, but there was also pride in every one of those phone calls. Every one of those families said, you know he really believed or she really believed in what he or she was doing. They were really proud of the effort, and we are very proud of them and their willingness to sacrifice. In the Civil War, Mr. Speaker, we lost roughly 400,000 troops. At Antietam it was 20,000 in one day. During World War II there were approximately 450,000 soldiers who died. In Korea, roughly 50,000. In Vietnam, 60,000. In those two conflicts we really do not have much to show in any way by way of accomplishment. That is not true with this particular conflict that we are involved in today. So, again, I do not want to in any way minimize the sacrifice of those 1,000 soldiers; but it is important historically to keep this in perspective in terms of what has been accomplished and in terms of the loss of life, which has been relatively small when you look at all of the wars that have been fought over the history of our Nation. A few months ago, I talked to soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kuwait, and in Iraq. We visited the hospital in Ramstein, Germany, Landstahl, where most all of the casualties, the seriously injured troops from the Middle East were taken, and then more recently here at Walter Reed. I was really amazed at how positive they were. Some had been seriously injured. Some had even lost limbs, arms or legs. The prevailing sentiment was that they wanted to get back to their units. Now, many of them would not be able to do that. And I thought at some point I would run into somebody in all those travels that would tell me, you know, this was a terrible mistake. We should not have done this. I do not know why you put us over there. That did not happen. So there seems to be a great deal of pride and a great sense of mission on the part of these young people. So some might pose the question: Well, why would they feel that way? Has anything good happened? We talked a little about Afghanistan; but in Iraq, for instance, more than 20,000 reconstruction projects have been completed and a great many of them have been with the aid of our troops. Crude oil exports are estimated to be $8 billion worth of exports in 2004, which would be approximately prewar or maybe even exceeding prewar levels. The average household income in Iraq has doubled over the last 8 months. Most Iraqis feel very good and very confident about their economic future. Businesses are springing up where normally there was no free enterprise at all previously. Today, there are more than 1 million automobiles more in Iraq than before the war. We have cleared roughly 17,000 kilometers of waterways for irrigation in 2003. Thirty to forty percent of the marshes drained by Saddam are now restored. In the health care area, 85 percent of the children have been immunized. Most of them had never been immunized previously in their lifetime. All 240 hospitals in Iraq are now open and functioning. There are 1,200 clinics in operation, and 30 times more money is being spent in Iraq today on health care than under Saddam. His people had abysmal health care under his regime. As far as education is concerned, 2,500 schools have been rehabilitated. New desks and books have been brought in, and 32,000 new teachers have been trained. School attendance is up by 80 percent in Iraq, and in a great many of these schools girls are there for the first time. Iraq has the highest illiteracy rate of any Arab country, roughly 77 percent in the female population, so for the first time many of these young women are attending school. Power generation continues to be a problem, but still we are generating more power today than before the war. There is still occasional brownouts or blackouts, but it is better than it was. There are 230,000 police, military individuals, guards, that have been trained. Most of them are employed, some are still in training; but we do feel that a great deal of progress has been made in that respect. Of course, everyone knows there has been a transfer of power to the Iraqi interim government. These are very, very brave people. They are under constant attack and surveillance, and we have to hope that they can be somewhat successful. Elections will be scheduled this January, and of course that will be a tremendous milestone. The whole Middle East, I believe, is looking at this experiment to see whether it can be successful or not, and that is why we see so many attacks from the insurgents. They absolutely do not want to see a democracy succeed in that part of the world. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I have formed something called the Iraqi Women's Caucus. Sounds like kind of a strange thing for a former football coach to be involved with; but we, in a conversation, came to believe that women tend to be a little less violent than men, and currently 60 percent of the population in Iraq is female because so many men have been killed. So we thought is there anything that we can do to help the Iraqi women be elected to office, or at least a certain percentage of them. So we have brought Iraqi women to this country to teach them about democracy, about how they might be elected to public office, and some minimal funding has been given to these organizations. I have tried to spend time and speak to each one individually. Some of them are highly educated and speak English, some of them I speak through an interpreter, but the prevailing sentiment I get is things are better now. One lady said, we do not understand what all of the uproar is about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Many of these women had family members who were killed, had seen rapes in front of their families, had undergone and seen tremendous atrocities. They feel almost unanimously the Iraqi people are relieved and grateful to see Saddam Hussein gone. They also say that the future is brighter now. They feel definitely things are better, and they see some light at the end of the tunnel. So the major sources of information that I have tried to use as I evaluate that situation is a little bit of personal experience, but mostly what I have gleaned from talking to the soldiers who have been there and who are there and talking to Iraqi citizens who are there now, I feel that the picture I have gotten is quite different than what we get on the nightly news. Certainly not all of the news is good, and I do not want to hide our head in the sand and pretend everything is perfect. There is no question that security over there is very problematic, and the Iraqi women tell us that. The Iraqis we talk to say that security is the number one issue that they are faced with. But still, a tremendous amount has been accomplished. A Gallup poll done a few months ago in Iraq clearly said that 80 to 90 percent of the Iraqis see a brighter future. About 80 percent would like to see some type of democratic government, a parliamentary type of government like they see in Europe, or something like what we have, and most of them would like to see their country no longer under a coalition force. But they also realize it is too soon; this is something that cannot be done at the present time. As I look at the situation, I feel that failure really is not an option, because if we were to pull out of Iraq at this time, number one, we will have dishonored the nearly 1,000 soldiers who have lost their lives. As I have talked to their families, as I have mentioned, it would be a terrible thing to talk to one of those families and say, we are leaving now, and the death of your soldier really went for naught. I do not think we can afford to do that. They felt there was a meaning and a purpose in going there, and we have to honor their lives by making sure that there is a favorable outcome. Number two, we will condemn thousands of Iraqis to death. Almost any Iraqi who has helped the coalition will certainly be sentenced to some type of very poor future, probably death. There is a strong likelihood of a civil war breaking out, which would be a bloodbath, and we promised the Iraqis that we would not do that. After the first Gulf War, hopefully we learned our lesson. So we have told them we will stick with them and see it through. The third thing that would happen if we pulled out is this country would become more vulnerable to terrorism, because any time you show terrorists that their methods are successful, it only invites more terrorism. It does not involve appeasement, it does not solve anything, it only escalates the problem. We cannot allow them to see that terrorism works. We have heard a great deal about Abu Ghraib and some of the things that have not gone well in Iraq, but I would like to tell Members, Mr. Speaker, about a young man named Troy Jenkins and what he did last April. Troy Jenkins was one of our soldiers. A young Iraqi girl apparently either had in her hands or was standing near a cluster bomb, and no one knows for sure whether she was innocent and did not know what she had, and apparently Troy Jenkins assumed she did not know. He threw himself on that cluster bomb and saved that girl's life and probably several of his comrades. We do not hear much about Troy Jenkins and the soldiers who have been willing to risk danger every day to do some of the reconstruction projects. I think it is well that we remember that there have been many acts of heroism. Some great things have been accomplished. It has not been a universally successful operation, but still more good has occurred than bad. The second thing I would like to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, which seems to be a matter of some controversy, is the economy. As with the war in Iraq, we find that perception often does not match reality. Some characterize the economy as being very poor. We hear this being discussed all of the time. I would like to mention just a few factors which I think are important to consider at this point. Referring to this chart on my left, interest rates currently are the lowest in the last 40 years. Of course, low interest rates generally stimulate economic growth and investment. Inflation is again at historic lows. The Producer Price Index is roughly 1.5 percent over the last 12 months. There was a time not too many years ago when we had double-digit inflation. No economy can sustain that type of inflation. The inflation level now is very low. Productivity expanded 5 percent over the last 4 quarters. We think that is the highest in the last 20 years. In the manufacturing sector, which we hear a lot about, employment reached a 30-year high in May. So the manufacturing sector is recovering, and employment is certainly rebounding. Housing, homeownership was 68.6 percent last quarter. That means more than two-thirds of Americans now own their own home, an all-time high. Again, that is an encouraging sign. Members may say if all of these things are true, what is the problem with the economy? There has got to be something wrong. The thing that we hear most often is the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is out of sight, and people simply do not have any jobs. So we might again refer to a chart here. During the decades of the 1970s, for that 10-year period, the average unemployment rate was 6.2 percent. During the 1980s, average unemployment went up to 7.3 percent. During the 1990s, which was an exceptionally favorable period of economic activity, if we listen to most people, particularly some Members speaking on this floor, the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent. Today, in 2004, the unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, lower than any one of those decades. If we average that 30-year period from 1970 to 2000, the average unemployment rate was 6.4 percent. Today it is 5.4 percent. That is not perfect. Mr. Speaker, we would like to see that down around 4.5 or something like that, but it is very difficult to get there. It certainly is much better than it has been historically for the last 30 years. I think that is important to realize. Mr. Speaker, unemployment runs roughly 9 to 10 percent in the European Union. Many of us feel that the European Union countries are doing well, but their unemployment rate is roughly double what we are currently experiencing. We added 144,000 new jobs in July. So over the last 12 months, we have added 1.7 million jobs in this economy. Some will say, but since the President took office, we are still down about 700,000 jobs. We lost about 2.5 million, we got 1.7 million back, so this President is a failure. I do not necessarily think that is true, because we had 9/11. We had a recession going on when the President took office, and we had the corporate scandals. So a lot has hit this economy, but it is certainly going in the right direction. It looks like it is recovering. In 2003, and this is something that very few people have stopped to think about or talk about, we had more Americans employed at the end of 2003 than at any time in history. What has happened is some of those roughly 2 million Americans who lost jobs started to work for themselves. So we had more people employed when we went to the household survey than ever before. So we talk about lost jobs, but many people have started their own businesses and are not destitute or out of work. Another myth which has been circulating here recently is that all of the tax cuts that were passed have not impacted the middle class. Some have said that the middle class is now paying more than before the tax cuts. That is absolutely not true. Every segment of the tax-paying economy is paying less in taxes than before the tax cuts. So currently an average middle-class family making $35,000 or $40,000, a wife, husband and two children, pays today $1,948 less in taxes than before the tax cuts. If you are making $35,000 or $40,000, and you have $2,000 less to pay, that is significant, and that is going directly to the middle class. So whether you are talking about the top bracket, the middle bracket or the lower bracket, if they paid taxes before, they are paying less today. So it is important to realize that the average American citizen has received a substantial tax cut. The most troubling factor, I think, as far as the economy is concerned which faces this country is well within the domain of Congress, and that is high energy prices. That is the one thing that we continually see affecting jobs, the stock market, and the economy in general. So I would like to address that very quickly because it affects trucking, airlines, agriculture, individuals, and yet one of the most discouraging things to me is we cannot get an energy bill passed in this Congress. The House has passed an energy bill, we have passed the conference report, but still it has not passed the other body. Until it becomes law, we all have failed to some degree. I would like to flesh out briefly for one second some of the main provisions of the energy bill which I think would be so important as far as the economy is concerned. This is really something that lies at the feet of not Republicans or Democrats, it is all of us. A key part of the energy bill is renewable fuel standards which provide for solar energy, wind energy, ethanol, and biodiesel. These are all ways to avoid being so dependent on foreign oil. Also, hydrogen fuel cell research and development is part of the energy bill, and most people feel this is the wave of the future. It is environmentally friendly and leaves no greenhouse gases. So if we want to develop hydrogen fuel cells, we need an energy bill because this is the stimulus that will cause this to happen. In Alaska, the natural gas pipeline, we have tons of natural gas. We have thousands of tons of natural gas in Alaska at the present time, and yet we are experiencing a tremendous shortage of natural gas in this country today. So it affects fuel prices, it affects heating prices, fertilizers and all of the different things which impact our economy. If we can build that pipeline from Alaska bringing that gas down here, our economy is going to recover very quickly. It is going to take a little time, 2, 3, 4 years; but it needs to be done. Then, of course, tax incentives to increase energy production. This country basically has not done much in exploration for additional oil reserves, energy reserves, nuclear power over the last 20, 30 years because of environmental regulations. We have to have some incentives to get this thing going again. Our refinery capacity has been reduced by roughly 30 percent over the last 15, 20 years. With those reductions, we put ourselves in a bind. We are now 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. We cannot continue to operate that way because projections have that going from 60 percent to 70 percent within the next few years. The buck stops here. It stops with Congress, and the blame game and partisanship is inexcusable. It simply needs to be done. On balance, Mr. Speaker, having said all of this, I think it is important to realize that this is the strongest economy in the world. Regardless of what anyone says, it is not perfect; but the economy by most measures, by most standards, is very strong at the present time and appears to be getting stronger. We have talked a little bit about the Middle East, and we have talked about the economy. The last topic I would like to cover has to do with the third significant factor, I think, which will bear upon the upcoming elections and that has to do with the culture. I was privileged to hear British Prime Minister Tony Blair speak in this Chamber a year ago. One comment that he made made particular sense to me. He said this: ``As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transitory.'' What he was saying, I believe, is that there is sort of an illusion. When you are on top, when you are the predominant country in the world, the most powerful country in the world, it seems like that will go on forever. But he says, Great Britain has experienced this, and we know that this is transitory, that all power is eventually transitory. It does not last forever. I would like to explore that thought a little bit tonight because history teaches that most of the world's great powers are not overcome by external military force but, rather, disassembled from within. Let us examine three such instances. First, we might take a look at Rome. That is a long time ago, about 2,000 years; but it certainly was the most dominant civilization. As a matter of fact, it ruled the whole civilized world at one time about 2,000 years ago and appeared to be invincible, but eventually it fell from preeminence. Some of the incidents that are given by historians are a little disturbing. They said there was a general decline in morality. There was increasing corruption and instability in the leadership of the Roman Empire. An increasing public addiction to ever-more violent public spectacles. In the Roman Colosseum, as you know, the masses had to be entertained, and it got bloodier and it got bloodier. Increasing crime and prostitution and a general population that became more self- absorbed, apathetic and unwilling to sacrifice for the common good. I do not know if any of that rings home or not, but to me it is a little disturbing when you read that list. Then, of course, Great Britain, the British Empire, dominated the world from the late 1600s through much of the 1800s, and this is what Tony Blair was talking about. That empire eventually slowly crumbled. The reasons given by historians were that they lost the national resolve to maintain their territory, which was spread all around the world, a great colonial empire, the values that led to ascendency eventually were eroded and the spiritual underpinnings shifted in that nation. Then Russia more recently, only 20 years ago, one of two great superpowers at that time, in a matter of months Russia disintegrated before our very eyes. Alexander Solzhenitsyn reflected on this fall when he observed this: ``Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia.'' He said this: ``Men have forgotten God. That's why all of this has happened.'' Marx and Lenin had dismantled Russia's religious heritage and their value system and Russia, even though it continued to do well for a number of years, had a broken foundation and eventually collapsed like a house of cards with nothing to sustain it. Some of the common themes of these three great world powers and their historical collapse would be the following: citizens are less willing to sacrifice for others and for their country, citizens become more self-absorbed, a greater desire for the state to provide for their welfare, less personal responsibility, a weakening of commonly held values, and a decline of spiritual commitment. What does all of this have to do with the United States and our present situation, Mr. Speaker? We certainly have the most powerful military. We have the strongest economy and the most stable government of any nation in the world today. And so it is easy to think that we are truly invincible. However, as Tony Blair stated, ``As Britain knows, all predominant power for a time seems invincible but, in fact, it is transitory.'' Is there reason for concern? Is there any reason to think that maybe we ought to pay attention to the current situation? I would say that there are some things over my previous 36 years spent in coaching and working with young people that have given me pause. I would like to mention some of these trends that I find disturbing. The young men that I worked with from roughly 1962 through 1997 were more talented each year. Yet they showed more signs of distress, more personal struggles. We spent more time with them off the field than we used to, and with some players off the field was really more intensive than on the field. There was less moral clarity as time passed and just generally a higher level of troubled young people. This chart that I am going to show you reflects some of the dysfunction that we have seen and an alarming trend. From 1960, the number of juvenile court delinquency cases increased by between 400 and 500 percent, just a steady upward trend, until the late 1990s. Several factors, I believe, contributed to these changes. First of all, family stability has eroded considerably. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock birthrate, Mr. Speaker, was 5 percent, one out of every 20 young people born. Today, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 33 percent, one out of three. And so one-third of the young people coming into our population have two strikes against them. Some of them somehow or another adapt, weave their way through, make it okay; but it is much more difficult. In 1960, the great majority of children lived with both biological parents. Today nearly 60 percent of our young people will spend at least part of their youth without both biological parents. So at least half, and maybe more than half, of our young people have suffered some major trauma in their family life. Only 7 percent of today's families are traditional families. I use quotation marks around the word ``traditional'' because only 7 percent today are traditional. A traditional family would be where one parent, primarily the father usually, works full-time and one parent, usually the mother, but not always, would be home with the children. And so when the children come home from school at 3 o'clock, generally nobody is home and so the hours from 3 to 6 are the most dangerous and the most troubled hours of the day for our young people in our culture at this particular time. Parents spend 40 percent less time with children than they did a generation ago. The divorce rate has increased 300 percent since 1960. This is a big one, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-four million children today live without their real father. Fatherless children, according to research, show the following tendencies: number one, they are more likely to be abused, girls or boys. They are more likely to have mental and emotional problems. They are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. More likely to commit suicide, commit a crime, or be promiscuous. The foundation of our culture, the family, is under assault. The family is the basic social unit. Some are surprised when there is concern about how marriage is defined. Many people say this is bigotry, this is religious fundamentalism, this is narrow mindedness. The concern that I have and I think a great many people have is not against anybody. The concern is for children, because it takes a mother and a father to create a child. According to nearly all of the research I have seen, and there is a lot of it, to have an adequate family and to have a healthy child, the best chance you have is to have a father contribute to the rearing of that child and a mother contribute to the rearing of that child. It takes both, each one, a male and a female, to contribute something to the stability and the education of that child. We feel that it is important that we think this through, because some countries have redefined marriage. As they have done so, we have seen less traditional marriage, we have seen more children born out of wedlock and more children living in dysfunctional situations. If you want to preserve the culture, if you want a strong country, you absolutely must have strong families. You must have children who grow up in a healthy way. Mr. Speaker, that is one reason why many of us have some concern about this particular issue. The family structure, the launching pad, is certainly not as stable as it once was. There are some discouraging signs. The difficult thing now is that we are taking those young people from that launching pad and we are releasing them into an environment that is much less friendly than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. In 1960, when I first started coaching, working with young people, drug abuse was almost unheard of. Today, of course, drug abuse is of almost epidemic proportion. Even in rural areas, an area I represent, methamphetamines, which are tremendously destructive, are very common. Another type of drug which ofttimes flies under the radar screen is that of alcohol abuse involving underage drinkers. A National Academy of Science study shows that alcohol kills 6\1/2\ times more kids than all other drugs combined. And so we are scared to death of cocaine and ecstasy and methamphetamine, and we should be; but when all is said and done, roughly 6\1/2\ times more children die from alcohol abuse than all the other drugs put together. Alcohol underage drinking costs the U.S. $53 billion annually, roughly 2\1/2\ times what we spent to rebuild Iraq. We have 3 million teenage alcoholics. As I said, by far the biggest drug problem, and one of the major concerns is that children are starting to drink at younger and younger ages. The average young person today takes their first drink of alcohol at age 12. Unfortunately, underage drinkers tend to binge drink. They drink on average, at an average sitting, twice as much as an adult; and, of course, alcoholism is achievable much more quickly under those circumstances. Alcohol and the drug issue is a big issue. In addition, we have the most violent Nation in the world for young people, the highest homicide rate, the highest suicide rate, and the second-place country is not even close. Pornography has exploded. There are over 1 million porn sites on the Internet. According to the London School of Economics, nine out of 10 children ages 9 to 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet and mostly unintentionally. Corporations such as AT&T have in the past been involved in the hard-core pornography business. Some of our more respectable businesses, and I say respectable in quotes, have gotten into this business. Many of us are somewhat dismayed by the way the FCC is regulating obscenity on the Nation's airwaves. I would have to say they are doing better. They have made some attempts to see things differently since the Super Bowl; but it took that, the Super Bowl half-time show, to get their attention. Video games, of course, are very violent. Some of them are very antisocial and of course much music, some television, many movies are graphic. The content of some of these media programs simply could not have been presented to the public 30 years ago. I have grandchildren ages 5 to 12, and I guess anyone who has young children or grandchildren is concerned about this. The family is less stable, the environment is more threatening, and our value system has shifted. Stephen Covey in his book, ``Seven Habits of Highly Successful People,'' reviewed all of the literature that had to do with success during the history of our Nation. He came up with something that was rather interesting. He said during that first 150 years of our Nation's existence, all of the research and all of the articles that he could find, nearly all of them, defined success in terms of character traits. A successful person was honest, a successful person was hardworking, faithful, loyal, compassionate and so on. Then he said about 50, 60 years ago, things began to shift. What he noted was that success was no longer defined in terms of character. Success had to do with material positions, how much money one had, how much power one had, how much prestige or celebrity one had. So it is very possible under this current definition to be labeled a success and really not be a very good person, not be a very sound person. So character apparently today has very little to do with whether a person is called successful or not. And, of course, we have seen a discouraging lack of integrity in the business world: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing. We have seen some of it in the press, some of it in athletics, some of it in the church, some of it in politics in the last few years. So the value system has shifted. Philosophically, the predominant world view that we see today in our culture is something called postmodernism, and it is especially prevalent on college campuses. And what postmodernism says is that there are no moral absolutes; everything is relative. So in the right circumstance, theft is okay; incest is certainly understandable, excusable; murder, adultery, treason. There are no moral absolutes. One's truth is one's truth. My truth is my truth. And there are no standards to which we can hang our moral compass. So in view of the family breakdown, the decline of the culture, and shifting values, this is an extremely difficult time to be a young person, perhaps the most difficult time in our history, and we are asking them to weave their way through a minefield littered with alcohol and drug abuse, harmful video games, music, TV, movies, promiscuity, gangs, violent behavior, and broken homes. And I think it is important that we pay attention to this because this has to do with the strength of our culture. So this is one reason, I believe, why the President has seen a real need for mentoring, because in the absence of caring adults in the lives of young people, mentoring seems to be about the next best thing that we can do. So a mentor is someone who cares unconditionally. A mentor is one who affirms, who says, ``I believe in you, I know you can do this,'' and everyone at some point needs affirmation. And a mentor is one who provides guidance, who tells someone that they have this talent, and they can see them going to a community college, that they can see them developing their artistic ability or their athletic talent or their music or whatever. Everyone needs somebody who sees something in them. So we need to pay close attention, as no culture is more than one generation away from dissolution. Two hundred years ago, de Toqueville made an astute observation, and this is what he said: He said, ``America is great because America is good,'' and he was referring to the large number of churches and civic clubs and youth groups and individuals reaching out to help those who were less fortunate when he said this. And he was referring to the inherent decency of the American people. He was referring to the basic ethic, ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' And de Toqueville wrote 200 years ago, as I said, and I guess the question we have to ask is, are his observations true today? Some are; however, there are certainly disturbing signs of change. I will conclude today, Mr. Speaker, by discussing a couple of concerns that I have with the courts, and I think, as I go through this, I would like people and the Speaker to consider, as the election approaches, what candidates, what people would be most likely to address some of the dysfunction that we have discussed here, some of the concerns that we have about our culture, and some of the things that our young people are enduring. In regard to the first amendment, we have found that there are some court decisions that at least some, including myself, would question. In 1996 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, that was the overwhelming majority of people in this body, that made it illegal to send indecent material to children via the Internet. But in June 1997, the Supreme Court overturned portions of the law. They said this: ``Indecent material is protected by the first amendment.'' So indecent material is protected. In 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention Act outlawed child pornography, including visual depictions that appear to be of a minor. In other words, this was simulated, computer-generated child pornography. In April 2002, the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional and overturned the law. In October 1998, the Children Online Protection Act was passed by Congress, signed into law, and it prohibits the communication of harmful material to children on publicly accessible Web sites. The Supreme Court refused to rule on the 1998 law, and it prevented it from being enacted. The 106th Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires schools and libraries that receive Federal funds to use Internet filtering to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet. In May 2002, a Federal court declared the law unconstitutional. So free speech, indecent speech is protected, while many of our women and children are being attacked, because 80 to 90 percent of pedophiles and rapists use pornography on a regular basis. So the argument is what people see and what they hear really does not harm anybody. This is just something that is out there in space. And if that is true, then why do we spend each year as a Nation billions of dollars on advertising? The reason is obviously that what people see and what they hear and what they read does affect behavior. It has a great impact on behavior. So there is some concern about these issues. Another first amendment issue that is a major concern is the issue of separation of church and state. Many people assume that that is in the Constitution, separation of church and state, but actually what the Constitution says in the first amendment is this: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' So the establishment clause simply says that Congress, this body, cannot create a state religion and cannot prevent somebody from practicing a religion. That is what it says. So we have taken that and run with it. So in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled the following prayer as being unconstitutional, and this is what the prayer said: ``Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers and our country.'' I do not want anyone to believe that I am saying that a teacher ought to get on a PA system, or the superintendent, or a teacher ought to get up in class and proselytize or try to promote a particular religious agenda. I do not believe that at all. But it seems to me that many of the rulings that we have had have taken us far afield from what the Founding Fathers originally espoused. Benjamin Franklin said this: ``We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in the political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.'' And he goes on to say this: ``I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.'' So that is the inception of why we have a prayer on the House floor and in the Senate every day before we begin business. And obviously Ben Franklin was one of the Framers of the Constitution, and yet he did not seem to see that prayer was to be abolished. George Washington said this: ``The propitious,'' or favorable, ``smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.'' So when he talks about eternal rules of order and right which Heaven has ordained, obviously he is talking about some immutable principles. He is talking about some values which do not shift with the sands and the whims of individuals. So he obviously would not agree with postmodernism. David Barton, the historian, says this: ``Franklin had warned that `forgetting God' and imagining that we no longer needed his `concurring aid' would result in internal disputes, the decay of the Nation's prestige and reputation, and a diminished national success. Washington had warned that if religious principles were excluded, the Nation's morality and political prosperity would suffer. Yet, despite such clear words, in cases beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court offered rulings which eventually divorced the Nation, its schools, and its public affairs for more than three centuries of heritage. America is now learning experientially what both Washington and Franklin knew to be true; we are suffering in very areas they predicted.'' So in referring to the establishment clause, I would like to just make a couple of observations: In 1992, that the Supreme Court ruled that an invocation and benediction at a graduation ceremony in a high school was unconstitutional. The Court held that a minute of silence in a school was unconstitutional. In a minute of silence, somebody might look out the window, somebody might think about their history test, somebody might say a prayer, but certainly this was not infringing, I would not think, on anyone's religious principles. In a student-led prayer at a football game, the students had voted that they wanted a prayer before the football game, a student would lead the prayer, and the Supreme Court said that is not constitutional. So the thing that has happened is that we have seen some jurists who seem to have taken what I would say great liberty with the Constitution. So the Constitution is increasingly interpreted as a ``living document,'' in quotes. So the Constitution is not interpreted as it was written, but rather as Justices believe it should be written and as it has become. So this ``living document'' hypothesis has changed things dramatically. The makeup of the courts and the will of Congress will greatly influence whether we continue to drift further from our spiritual heritage or draw close to those values upon which our Nation was founded. I believe that November's elections will directly influence not only the makeup of the Congress, but also ultimately the nature of the courts, and this is something I think we need to pay close attention to. So there is no question that we are engaged in a cultural and spiritual struggle of huge proportion. Much is at stake. I can only hope that the principles upon which this Nation were founded remain preeminent.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I am not a constitutional scholar, obviously. I spent 40 years working with approximately 2,000 young people. I actively recruited those young people to go to the University of Nebraska. I visited annually 60 to 70 of them personally in their homes and met their parents, and I saw firsthand the difference a family makes, for better or for worse. In my experience, the marriage findings of 12 leading family scholars who summarized thousands of studies on child rearing are as follows: children raised by both biological parents within a marriage are less likely to become unmarried parents, live in poverty, drop out of school, have poor grades, experience health problems, die as infants, abuse alcohol and drugs, experience mental illness, commit suicide, experience sexual and verbal abuse, engage in criminal behavior. And then they concluded with this statement that I think is noteworthy: ``Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. It is the bedrock of our culture.'' And so what I observed was that a father contributes something unique to the welfare of a child. A mother also makes a unique contribution. Several countries, notably in Scandinavia, have changed the traditional definition of marriage. There has always been a decline of traditional marriage and a surge of out-of-wedlock births in these countries, and children born in such circumstances, on average, suffer significant dysfunction. So the question before us is this, as I see it: Do we allow a small number of members of the judiciary to alter an institution which has been the backbone of this Nation? Do we allow these same jurists to do so with a great majority of our citizens and our States firmly in opposition to a change? Forty-four of 50 States have laws defining marriage in a traditional manner. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that speaks directly to the welfare of our children, the future of our country, and I urge support of H.R. 3313.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate lately about the definition of marriage. It seems that the position taken is determined largely by a person's world view. Some are primarily interested in what best serves adults. Issues such as health insurance benefits, Social Security benefits, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights tend to dominate the debate. There is emphasis upon individual rights and personal freedoms. There is resentment of those who would attempt to limit the definition of marriage. On the other hand, there are those who are primarily interested in children's welfare and long-term cultural implications as they seek to define marriage. For these people, marriage is viewed as the most basic, elemental social contract. It is the bedrock of the culture. Its primary purpose is the conception and rearing of children in a stable, long-term relationship between a man and a woman. The strength of the culture, possibly for its very survival, depends upon this process. If one subscribes to the primacy of the importance of children, then certain facts appear to be incontrovertible. First, a man and a woman produce a child; no other arrangement seems to work very well. Second, research shows that children do better when they live with their biological father and mother in a long-term, stable relationship. Twelve leading family scholars summarized thousands of studies on child rearing as follows: children raised by both biological parents within a marriage are less likely to become unmarried parents, live in poverty, drop out of school, have poor grades, experience health problems, die as infants, abuse drugs and alcohol, experience mental illness, commit suicide, experience sexual and verbal abuse, engage in criminal behavior. And they conclude their observations as follows: ``Marriage is more than a private, emotional relationship. It is also a social good.'' In other words, all of these behaviors certainly impact all of us as tax payers and certainly break down the culture. I worked closely with young people for 40 years and personally witnessed the emotional pain and dysfunctional behavior brought about by the destruction of marriages. Most of this dysfunction was caused by the absence of fathers. Fathers contribute to a child's well-being in a unique way. Mothers also obviously make a unique contribution. It takes both. Opponents of traditional marriage will refer to studies refuting this data. However, these studies almost always compare families where no father at all is present, are not longitudinal, and are poorly designed. Several countries, notably in Scandinavia, have changed the traditional definition of marriage. The result has been a decline in traditional marriage and a surge in out-of-wedlock births in these countries. Children born in such circumstances on average suffer significant dysfunction and distress. The strength of a culture can be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens: its children. So the question before us today is this: Do we allow a small number of members of the judiciary to alter an institution which has been the backbone of this Nation? Do we allow these same jurists to do so with the great majority of our citizens in our cities and our States firmly opposed to a change? Forty-four of 50 States have laws defining marriage in a traditional manner. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that speaks directly to the welfare of our children and our Nation. Same-sex marriage issues such as survivor benefits and health care benefits for adults can be addressed without doing violence to a time-honored institution which is vital to our national well-being and particularly to our children.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a subject that is very difficult for many of us to address, and that is the subject of suicide. Last Friday, along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), I introduced H.R. 4799, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. This legislation offers a comprehensive strategy toward addressing suicide, suicide prevention and mental health in high schools and on college campuses. So why is it important to address this critical issue? I would like people to consider these facts. Number one, more children and young adults die from suicide each year than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined. Number two, over 4,000 children and young adults take their own lives every year, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. From 1952 to 1995, the rate of suicide in children and young adults has tripled. The American College Health Association found that 61 percent of college students reported feeling hopeless, 45 percent said they feel so depressed they could barely function, and 9 percent felt they were suicidal. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, depression among college freshmen has nearly doubled to 16.3 percent. I find these statistics very troubling and somewhat alarming. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 20 percent of full-time undergraduate college students use elicit drugs, and 18.4 percent of adults ages 18 to 24 are dependent on or are abusing illicit drugs or alcohol, and all of this drug abuse and alcohol abuse oftentimes leads to suicide as well. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act works to address in a proactive way this national problem. The legislation consists of two parts: Part one provides grant funding to States for development of a youth suicide prevention and intervention strategy through educational systems, juvenile justice systems, local governments and private nonprofit entities that are engaged in activities focused on mental health. The bill also provides for screening programs for youth that can identify mental health and behavioral conditions that place youth at risk for suicide. The bill also establishes a Federal Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center. Part 2 of this bill provides grant funding to colleges and universities to establish or enhance their mental health outreach and treatment centers and enhance their focus on youth suicide prevention and intervention. The bill authorizes a total of $15 million for fiscal year 2005, gradually increasing funding over the next 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a minute and discuss the genesis of this particular legislation. This bill is named in honor of the son of Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. Garrett Lee was his son and took his life last year after several years of struggle with bipolar disorder. Senator Smith and his wife, Sharon, are determined to turn their private tragedy into something positive. I admire the Smith family's courage in speaking publicly about their son, and I hope that their efforts will raise awareness and save other young people from the same fate. I invite other Members of the House to support this important legislation. There was a time when suicide was not mentioned. However, only when we openly discuss the problem, confront the statistics, and work towards solutions such as those proposed by the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act can we start to prevent these tragedies from happening.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work of the members of the committee, and of Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Jose Serrano on H.R. 4754. Caseloads for U.S. district judges in Nebraska have climbed steadily. In fact, criminal cases have more than doubled since 1995. Like many other states in the Midwest, Nebraska has been plagued in recent years by an influx of methamphetamine (meth), and criminal cases involving meth represent a significant increase in Nebraska's drug docket. Interstate 80, which runs the length of the state of Nebraska, is one of the primary transit routes used for drug trafficking across the central United States. Nebraska's ability to prosecute interstate drug trafficking affects the whole country. In fact, Nebraska's judges carry a heavier criminal caseload than judges in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Mr. Chairman, while I am grateful for the increased funding provided in this bill for the federal court system, the substantial increase in Nebraska's criminal trials leaves Nebraska's federal judges with impossibly heavy caseloads. I also appreciate the generous funding the CJSJ committee has allocated in the last several years towards fighting meth in Nebraska. These funds have made a significant difference. My colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, has introduced H.R. 4301, to authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of Nebraska. The Senate has already passed legislation that included Nebraska in the list of judgeships to be made permanent and I am hopeful the House will do the same. A fourth judgeship is critically important to Nebraska, and without it, criminal cases will move more slowly and handling civil cases will become increasingly burdensome. I support and urge passage of the underlying appropriations bill and I look forward to continuing to work with the authorizing committee to address the judgeship issue in Nebraska.

Mr. OSBORNE

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, at this time we would like to honor the gentleman from Nebraska (Doug Bereuter), who is from the First Congressional District. I would like to begin the Special Orders by recognizing the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who is the chairman of Committee on Ways and Means and who graciously arranged this hour for us.

Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know Mr. Bereuter appreciates very much those comments as well. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and I appreciate her participation in this Special Order.

Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. At this time I would like to call upon the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.