Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned, I have served as a cochair of the Iraqi Women's Caucus. Some people may say, well, why would you have a Women's Caucus? The reason is at one point we were meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, and Paul was mentioning the fact that women had been subjugated in Iraq, had not been given a voice. So at that time Jennifer Dunn and I thought that maybe doing something to encourage Iraqi women would be helpful, because women tend to be oriented toward family, toward children, and they tend not to be as isolated by tribes, by ethnicity. As a result, we formed the Iraqi Women's Caucus. We felt that women could be a key to uniting Iraq.

So we are very encouraged by Radio Al Mahaba and the fact that they are now broadcasting in three languages. They do not recognize differences between the Shiia, the Kurds and the Sunnis; and they devote themselves almost entirely to women's issues. We feel that this is something that absolutely has to be encouraged.

In talking to Iraqi women who have come to the United States, and we have had many groups who come here, they have said that really Iraq is not as divided as most people in the United States believe, because there is intermarriage and there are cousins who are from one tribe or another and they all are related. So we feel that endeavors such as this are really important.

Mr. Speaker, we particularly want to commend the staff at the radio station, Al Mahaba, for their bravery, for their fortitude, and for what they are doing to try to bring Iraq together. I think one thing that we will find is that humanity has certain common instincts and needs, and certainly the desire to nurture on the part of women, and men as well, the desire to have strong families, the desire to have our children have a better life than what we had is something that is common to all of us.

So as we point out these things and as this radio station capitalizes on those instincts, I think we certainly are moving toward a better day in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, many of us have been impacted, directly or indirectly, by diseases like juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and so on. I have friends, as many people here do, who have had these diseases, and my heart goes out to these families. And on the other hand, many oppose embryonic stem cell research because they see the embryo as a human life, which I do as well.

So where do we go with this? I mean on the one hand we are going to create a huge problem for those who believe in life beginning at conception, and we have a desire to also help people who need the stem cell research that think that these are the solutions. So I would differ with some of my friends here, in that the British have done more than 2,000 replications where they have extracted stem cells without destroying the embryo. It has been done. This is not something that has never occurred before. This is not pie in the sky. This is a very real possibility to resolve this dilemma: Are you going to try to preserve human life, as many of us who are pro-life see it, and also have stem cell research? The Senate saw it 100-0. So why over here now, in order to pass a particular bill, are we trying to destroy this bill? It makes no sense to me.

So with that, I certainly urge passage of Senate 2754.

Mr. Speaker, I request to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, underage drinking flies under the radar screen most of the time, and I guess the reason for that is that alcohol is legal and is widely accepted. The average age 12- to 17- year-olds begin drinking is 12.7 years of age.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the number of underage deaths due to excessive alcohol use is roughly 4,554 a year. In other words, in one year we lose more young people to underage drinking than we have lost in Iraq in 3 years. The death rate is six times higher for underage drinking.

Another death rate that is six times higher is alcohol kills six times more young people than all other drugs combined: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana. Six times more die from underage drinking.

Teens who start drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to

become addicted to alcohol than someone who starts drinking at age 21. Yet the Federal Government spends about 25 times more annually to combat youth drug use than to prevent underage alcohol use. In other words, we spend $1.8 billion on combating heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, compared to $71 million for underage drinking.

Most people know that alcohol is a gateway drug. It leads to all of these other drugs directly, and it appears to be much more fatal and more dangerous when you look at the raw numbers.

Television ads for alcohol products outnumber responsibility messages by 32 to 1. In other words, you will see 32 ads promoting alcohol, and many of those ads are very attractive to young people, for every one that talks about responsible use of alcohol. From 2001 to 2003, the alcohol industry spent $2.5 billion on television advertising their product, and only $27 million on responsibility programs.

Underage drinkers currently account for 17 percent of all alcohol sales in the United States; and in my State, Nebraska, underage drinkers consume 25 percent of the alcohol sold.

Young people tend to binge drink. They do not drink socially. Ninety- two percent of the alcohol consumed by 12- to 14-year-olds is consumed when they are having five or more drinks in a row, which is called binge drinking, or, more often, drinking to get drunk.

Recent studies have found that heavy exposure of the adolescent brain to alcohol interferes with brain development. We will take a look at this poster. On the right is a young person 15 years of age who abstains from alcohol, who was asked to do a comprehensive memory test. On the left is a young person who is a binge drinker who is sober at the time and asked to do the same test. You see the amount of cortical activity, the amount of brain activity firing in the young person who is an abstainer compared to the one who uses and abuses alcohol.

So there is quite a difference in this regard, and I would present a hypothesis of mine and that is that a great many young people who drop out, a great number of young people who do very poorly in school are affected dramatically by alcohol, binge drinking, and alcohol abuse.

There are a couple of other things on this poster that I think are worthy of note. There are roughly 3 million teenagers who today are full-blown alcoholics. Alcohol, as we mentioned, kills about six times more people than all other drugs combined. The total cost of underage drinking to the country is $53 billion a year. $53 billion a year. It is a huge expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced legislation, Congresswoman Roybal- Allard, Congressman Wamp, Congressman Wolf and Congresswoman DeLauro, and Senators DeWine and Dodd have introduced the Sober Truth on Prevention of Underage Drinking, the STOP Act, which would, number one, create a Federal agency coordinating all of the Federal programs aimed at underage drinking. Right now we have underage drinking programs spread across 12 agencies. They are not coordinated. Sometimes they duplicate each other and are not very effective. So we would want those coordinated.

Secondly, it authorizes a national media campaign directed at adults. The number one indicator of whether a young person will use alcohol and abuse alcohol is parental attitudes. So many parents really believe the myth if a young person is using alcohol, then they will not use marijuana, they will not use cocaine, they will not use heroin, when exactly the opposite is true. Because anymore, a person that abuses one substance will abuse another, and alcohol usually leads to further abuse.

The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act, STOP Act, would:

Create a Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate the efforts and expertise across agencies for underage drinking;

Authorizes a national media campaign directed at adults;

Parents are the number one influence on underage drinking;

Parents & friends purchase 65 percent.

Provide additional resources to communities and colleges and universities to prevent underage drinking;

1,700 college students die each year

70,000 rapes or sexual assaults

Increases Federal research and data collection on underage drinking.

So we hope that we can have support for this act. We think it is important, and we urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Gingrey for yielding me time. I also thank Chairman Oxley and Representative Goodlatte for their work on this bill, and Representative Leach and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this is a tremendously important piece of legislation. This is not a filler. This is not something we are just going through the motions on. The reason I say this is that gambling causes poverty. It causes poverty, in many cases, as much as the wage actually paid an individual. It causes family dysfunction. It causes crime, embezzlement, theft.

There is nothing that we can do right now at this particular time that I think is more germane to the welfare of families and people in the United States than this legislation. The proliferation of Internet gambling is fueling the growth of illegal sports gambling on college campuses across the country. That is why this legislation is endorsed by the NCAA, the NFL and Major League Baseball. The reason I am coming at it from this perspective is, as a coach for 36 years, I was always very concerned about the impact of gambling on athletics.

A 2003 study by the NCAA showed that almost 35 percent of male student athletes engaged in some type of sports wagering behavior in the previous year, and roughly 10 percent of female student athletes did as well. For instance, one athlete reported a $10,000 Internet gambling debt.

Now, when you have that type of debt, and you are a student, there is almost no way you can pay it off except you can possibly say, well, you know, if I cooperate with the gamblers, and if I miss a free throw or fumble the football or fix a game, then I can be made whole.

And so the integrity of athletics is pretty much at jeopardy in this regard, and particularly because Internet gambling can be done in such an inconspicuous way. Almost every college student has access to a computer, and 70 percent of them have credit cards. Therefore, this is a huge problem on the college campus.

College students are more likely to fall victim to serious gambling problems. According to a 1997 study by Harvard University, college students show the highest percentage of pathological and problem gambling of any subgroup in the country.

So because of the pervasive, legal, economic and social challenges posed by the rapid growth of Internet gambling, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission unanimously recommended, in its 1999 final report, that the Federal Government prohibit all Internet gambling not authorized and legalized by law.

H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, provides new law enforcement mechanisms to stop offshore casinos that are violating existing State and Federal laws against Internet gambling. The ease of Internet gambling poses a very serious threat to our families and our society.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I urge support by my colleagues. Support the rule and underlying legislation to crack down on illegal Internet gambling.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bartlett. I really appreciate your leadership on this issue. And you are obviously the expert.

Mr. Bartlett is a geneticist and understands the topic very well. I would just like to set the stage for some of the debate tonight.

Many of us have been impacted directly or indirectly by diseases like juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's and so on. And so I think everyone understands the desire for people to find a cure. And for many people, the silver bullet is embryonic stem cell research. And they feel this holds great promise. It has been going on now for about 7 years. We have not seen great progress, but it is still early in the process. So, as a result, there are many people who are pushing very hard for embryonic stem cell research.

On the other hand, many oppose embryonic stem cell research because they see the embryo as a living, viable human being; and therein lies the moral dilemma. On the one hand, people see the possibilities and on the other hand they see the destruction of life. And so is there a possible solution? Where do we come out on this?

If you believe that life begins at conception and if you believe in the sanctity of life, the destruction of embryos for research purposes would be largely unacceptable. And so, Mr. Bartlett's legislation holds great interest to me, because we have found that there is a possible alternative.

The President has said that he will veto H.R. 810, which is a stem cell research bill. And if it is passed by the Senate, and people predict that it will be passed, then it will probably be vetoed by the President. And at that point, it appears as though the House will sustain that veto and probably the Senate as well. So we are right back to square one.

So is there an alternative? And that is why I am here tonight.

As many people may be aware by now, there is still the potential for a morally acceptable stem cell research to be conducted with Federal funds through the Bartlett bill. And evidently there is a process at the present time whereby embryonic stem cells can be extracted, and it is still in its elemental stages, without destroying the embryo. So I have great interest in this because it does provide an answer to the dilemma that I have just outlined.

And so, without a lot of further commentary from me, being somewhat of an amateur in the area, I would defer to Mr. Bartlett, because he truly understands this research, which I think can be the answer that so many of us are looking for.

I personally am a very strong prolife individual, have voted consistently in that direction. And so I welcome this opportunity to look at a prolife solution to embryonic stem cell research.

I appreciate the gentleman's work on this bill, appreciate his knowledge, his expertise, which is certainly unparalleled in the Congress.

And with that, I just wanted to make those opening preparatory remarks and lend my support to this bill and this work that you are doing, and thank you for doing it.

This is all probably going to come to a head here in the next week or so; so this is a critical time. And what I think and others are trying to do is to create awareness and to make sure that people in the Congress understand the nature of the research that he is proposing.

So I commend you for your work. I want to wish you the very best, and hopefully in the next week or 10 days, we will see some positive results. So thank you for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the average time spent playing video games for the average young person age 8 to 18 years is 49 minutes a day, just a little bit less than an hour a day.

Ratings of video games are made by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, also known as the ESRB. The ESRB assigns ratings without first playing the games, based on surveys, which is really a rather unusual way of doing surveys.

The ESRB is actually a part of the video game industry; so in essence, the industry is rating itself, which is inappropriate.

Ratings are often used as marketing tools to increase sales. They are subjective. There are no quantifiable standards in these ratings.

Research done by Dr. Elizabeth Caril of the American Psychological Association and other researchers indicate the following:

Number one, exposure to violent video games increases aggressive behavior, thoughts and anger.

Number two, sexualized violence in video games increases violence toward women and acceptance of rape.

Number three, video games enhance stereotypes of minorities and women.

Number four, violent antisocial behavior is often necessary to win the game, often with no negative results to the aggressor.

Other findings were as follows: often these games employ stalking and killing of victims, and these videos are similar to what the military uses in training soldiers to kill enemy soldiers.

The ratings for the ESRB are as follows: E is a rating which means E for everyone. Yet 64 percent of E-rated games contain violence that reward the player for injuring other people.

T is the next rating, for teenagers, yet 48 percent of the videos did not describe on the label objectionable material contained in the game. And much of the material was as follows: it had violence, blood, sexual themes, profanity, alcohol use. Sixty-nine percent of those games required the player to kill people to win the game. The average was 61 human deaths per hour in these video games.

The next rating is M for age 17 and older, meaning mature. And these ratings contain profanity, drugs, sexual themes, violence, blood and gore. Eighty-one percent of such games did not describe content accurately on the label. Seventy-seven percent of boys under age 17 own an M-rated game, which, of course, would be against the rating system.

And so the final rating is AO, for adults only. But we find this is a seldom-used rating, even though video games are more violent, sexually explicit and profane than ever.

According to David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, psychological and behavioral studies show that violent video games increase real-world aggression in young people. And this is a little bit different than watching television or listening to music because this actually requires you to interact, to do something actively and play in the game. So it has a very definite impact on behavior.

Such games are particularly damaging, as children are developing and maturing and their brains and emotions are maturing.

As technology advances, video games are increasingly realistic, more violent and sexually explicit. More and more games will be sold online, making regulation even more difficult.

So far legislative efforts to rein in the video game industry have been largely negated by the courts. First amendment, free speech, tends to trump the welfare of our young people.

Walsh and others recommend this: they recommend one rating system for all visual media. As most people know, movies have G, PG, PG13, R and X. And yet video games have an entirely different rating system. So the current system is confusing, and each media outlet now has their own rating system, which is inconsistent and makes no sense.

Secondly, the industry should label products harmful if so deserved, such as cigarettes which are harmful and are labeled as being so.

Also, we need to keep M-rated, or mature, video games out of children's hands. As mentioned earlier, 77 percent of boys under age 17 have M-rated videos, and yet there are no penalties at the present time for vendors of these materials if they sell to an underage young person. If you did this in the alcohol industry, of course, you would be fined or penalized in some way.

Also, AO, or adult-only ratings, need to be used on explicit material, and they seldom are.

Independent raters should validate ratings, not industry representatives. The industry should not be rating itself.

And also, parents need to be educated about the rating system.

So, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Baca and I have introduced legislation attempting to bring these rating systems into compliance with normal standards, and we hope that Members of Congress would be willing to take a look at this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, most Americans believe that we need to increase our renewable fuels and decrease

our dependency on foreign oil. And you may say, well, what does this have to do with the bill before us? The reason is that 30 to 50 percent of our corn crop is based on fertilizer. If you don't have fertilizer, it reduces dramatically the amount of corn you produce and the amount of ethanol.

Last year, we produced 4 billion gallons of ethanol in the United States, and 1.6 billion was directly attributable to fertilizer. The problem is that you can't produce fertilizer if you don't have natural gas. We have some of the most expensive fertilizer in the world and the highest natural gas prices.

We absolutely have to get this under control. We have tremendous supplies, but we can't get at them because of the regulations. So this makes sense for our economy, and it certainly makes sense for our farmers, our agriculture, and our renewable fuels.

I urge support of this bill. It is absolutely essential for our economy that we take action at this time. I support H.R. 4761.

Mr. Speaker, as an older American, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5293, the Senior Independence Act, which reauthorizes the Older American Act. And I want to congratulate Chairman Tiberi, who is not an older American, but he is getting there, as well as Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller and Mr. Hinojosa.

The Senior Independence Act, as has been pointed out many times, reauthorizes and strengthens the delivery of social services for older Americans. In my State, Nebraska, 13.6 percent of our population are over 65. In most States, the average is between 10 and 15 percent, and this is a very rapidly increasing percentage. So this is an important segment of our population, and I would like to focus in my brief time here on the significance and the possibilities that lie before seniors.

President Bush stated this. He said, ``Too often society views retirement as an ending not just of a career, but of an active life. For many, even most, the opposite is true. Today's elderly are the healthiest, most energetic, best-educated generation of seniors in history. They have more free time, and they want to use it. They have the wisdom of years, and they want to share it.''

So seniors are a vast untapped resource in our society, and so we think that we need to better harness those abilities and those talents that they have.

During committee consideration of this legislation, I along with Mr. Fortuno offered an amendment to authorize a pilot project within the Administration on Aging called the Silver Scholarship Initiative to encourage and reward older Americans who dedicate at least 600 hours of service each year to their communities by providing them a $1,000 educational award. This award can be used for themselves or, probably more likely, for grandchildren, members of their family, or just a young person that they want to designate. This would allow us to harness those volunteer hours and make this more a useful period of their lives.

So while this provision was not added to the bill, I strongly believe in this idea, and I hope that Congress will keep looking for ways to encourage all Americans, especially seniors, to contribute to their communities in the form of this service.

Thank you, and I want to encourage passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to the chart that is being presented here which is a drought monitor and reflects pretty much the current situation in drought.

The interpretation of that map would lead you to understand that yellow means abnormally dry. The light brown indicates a moderate drought. Brown is severe drought. Red is excessive or extreme drought, and then black or dark brown is exceptional drought.

We can see that a large part or the central part of the country is either in an extreme or exceptional drought, and that is disturbing, but if it only was ongoing for this particular period of time would not be so damaging.

The problem is that this is a 7-year process. We are in the seventh year of this drought, and most of those areas we are beginning to see some patterns emerge that are very disturbing.

This, for instance, is what has happened in some of the cities and towns in my district and in the State of Nebraska, and you see Lincoln, Grand Island, Hastings, Kearney, a minus 27, 28 inches over that period of time. Some other areas in the eastern part of the State are 10, 15 inches down, but if you look at this map, what you will notice is that the western two-thirds of Nebraska, the western half of Kansas, western half of Oklahoma, much of South Dakota, at times North Dakota, Montana, down into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have experienced this extreme drought and this loss of water.

What that means is the aquifers in most of those areas are declining. The reservoirs are down to where they are 25, 30 percent full instead of 75 to 100 percent full, and as a result, we are beginning to see a pattern that is really very difficult for many of our farmers to continue to combat.

In many cases here, what we have seen is a reduction of herds. As water has been insufficient and pastures dry out, you cannot support as many cows on that pasture, and you have to sell off some of your brood stock, and of course, that has hurt the cattle industry in those areas.

We have also had to compensate by increased irrigation, and of course, that has been very expensive as fuel prices have gone up, as fertilizer has increased in costs by triple, sometimes quadruple over the last 3 or 4 years. Those input costs have squeezed profit margins to the point where many people are not able to survive in farming.

Also, we have seen some rather major changes in agricultural practices, mitigation of drought. For instance, we are now planting more sorghum, which requires less water than corn or soybeans. We are seeing skip row planting where we are not planting every row that we used to because of the lack of water. Using no till, which means that you plant the seeds in the ground without actually plowing up the ground because that causes water to evaporate so that preserves water.

So, a lot of changes have been made, but even so, this has not been enough. We are still seeing all of those problems.

What we are seeing is a major loss of equity in many of these farmers. They simply had to go to the bank and borrow more money and sacrifice whatever equity they have built up in their farm or in their ranch. As a result, we are seeing some people now that are teetering on the brink to some degree.

We will see what happens in the rest of this planting season and growing season, but things are getting somewhat extreme and somewhat dire.

2002, 2004, we had some drought relief. We are not sure what will happen because in those years we were able to get an offset, and we went into the conservation security program and secured, roughly, $3 billion in both of those years for drought mitigation, but this year, again we will be asked for an offset. I really do not know where that is going to come from.

We are concerned, and I am simply on the floor here today speaking, letting people know, make them aware of this thing that has continued now in this year for the better part of 7 years and is really affecting the agriculture sector.

Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. I appreciate your expertise, your knowledge in this area. And my remarks will be relatively brief because you are the one that truly understands your bill and understands the research much better than I.

But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that nearly all of us have been impacted, either directly or indirectly, by diseases

like juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease and spinal injuries. And there has been a great clamor over the last 7 years, since embryonic stem cells have been recognized as a possible source of cures for these diseases, that there should be public funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The ethical dilemma, obviously, for those of us who are prolife, who believe in the sanctity of life, is that we would like to see research occur that is helpful, but we don't really want to see human embryos destroyed in the process. And I think that is what brings Mr. Bartlett and I to the floor together this afternoon, our common interest in some research of this type, but an aversion to the destruction of human embryos. And so I really applaud him for what he has done and for his bill and just make a few comments.

I think the ethical dilemma really revolves around when does life begin. And for some people it is at 9 months. For some it is at birth. For some it is at 3 months, 6 months. But for a great many of us, it is at conception. And if that is your belief, then an embryo constitutes a human life, so what happens to that embryo is of great concern.

And so the research that we are going to talk about this afternoon has to do with allowing research with human embryos that does not harm or destroy the embryo. And therein lies, I think, the interest that I have in this particular process.

There have been a few studies done just recently that I would like to refer to. This came from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders. It is published by the National Institutes of Health. And this is the quote. I believe that this was posted June 21, just a day or two ago. ``For the first time, researchers have enticed transplants of embryonic stem cell-derived motor neurons in the spinal cord to connect with muscles and partially restore function in paralyzed animals. The study suggests that similar techniques may be useful in treating such disorders as spinal cord injury'' in humans. And, of course, this was done primarily with mice. But that is just recently, in the last couple of days, where paralyzed mice have actually had some of their motor functions and some of their paralysis reversed through a process that has not resulted from the destruction of human embryos.

The second study I would like to mention was published on Monday, October 17, 2005, in the Washington Post. It said, ``Two teams of scientists provided the first definitive evidence yesterday that embryonic stem cells can be grown in laboratory dishes without harming healthy embryos, an advance that some scientists and philosophers believe could make the medically promising field more politically and ethically acceptable.''

And I think this was pretty much the genesis of the gentleman's bill and his research. So, rather than taking further time from the expert, I am just going to offer my words of support, my appreciation for his knowledge in this area.

He is, to my understanding, the only geneticist in the House of Representatives, the only one with the adequate scientific understanding to truly bring this forward. And so I applaud you for your research and your stance and for the promise that your bill holds for many of us.

And as many of us know, the President has talked about vetoing any bill that would result in future destruction of human embryos. We believe this is an answer to that concern and a way around that veto.

And so with that, Mr. Bartlett, I yield to you and thank you for your work.

Mr. Speaker, today we have two funerals occurring in Nebraska in my district. The two soldiers being buried are 22-year-old Specialist Benjamin Slaven, Plymouth, Nebraska, a reservist who was killed south of Baghdad on June 9; a 19-year-old Corporal Brent Zoucha from Clarks, Nebraska, who was killed in al Anbar province on the same day, June 9. Both are being buried June 20, today, and their funerals are occurring as we speak. This makes more than a dozen soldiers, all young, all from rural small communities, that have been killed in my district.

Funerals, Mr. Speaker, should honor and dignify the sacrifices of those soldiers and their families. It should not be disrupted and dishonored by protesters with a political agenda, and unfortunately, some of those protests that have been mentioned previously have occurred in Nebraska. You can imagine how devastating those are to those families who are suffering greatly.

I spoke recently to the mothers of both of these soldiers from Nebraska being buried today. You can sense their pain and their anguish. And so I commend Mr. Moran for offering H. Res. 731 and also want to thank and commend the Patriot Guard Riders for what they have accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years in coaching. Every Monday morning after a Saturday game, I got lots of mail telling me what I should have done. None of those letters helped me very much, because the game was over; hindsight was always perfect. And the was not what we should have done, but rather, what do we do now.

And the same is true I think in regard to Iraq. We need to be proactive, not reactive. Like many Members of Congress, I have traveled to Iraq multiple times, and I met on one of these visits a young captain from Nebraska. This is what he said. He said that if we pull out prematurely, if we do not see this thing through, three things are going to happen.

Number one, every soldier we have lost will have died in vain. I think what he says is true. I called a mother this morning whose son had just been killed. She was proud of her son. She was proud of the sense of mission he had. And I really hate to tell her that we are leaving, that he died in vain.

Number two, tens of thousands of Iraqis will die as the nation implodes. This is what he said. And there may be hundreds of thousands. We will have broken our promise. We told them we would not pull out until we were ready and they were ready. And we cannot break our promise.

And, third, we will put a huge bulls eye on our backs, because as terrorists feel that terrorism works, and that we will retreat in the face of terrorism, only more terrorism will result.

We have seen many examples, Beirut, Kenya, USS Cole, World Trade Center bombing number one, and Bali. One of my All-American football players was killed in that bombing. Three hundred people lost their lives. And so inaction has led to only more terrorism, including 9/11.

The lack of resolve and willingness to see this through will only result in the spread of terrorism and greater loss of life than anything we have experienced so far.

Many of the soldiers I have met in Iraq are on their third and fourth tours of duty. They volunteered because they see progress. They have a sense of mission and purpose. And the one thing they ask me and tell me is that they are committed to completion of their mission. We should allow them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to consume the time of Mr. Jones.

Mr. Speaker, immigration has been the number one concern of many Americans in recent months. The House passed a bill last December which dealt mostly with tough border security. It provided for more Border Control agents, a 700-mile fence, different penalties for illegally entering the U.S., and substantial penalties for employers who employ illegal immigrants.

The Senate, more recently, passed a bill with tight border security but also had language which addresses the problem of the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States. Some believe the Senate's three-tiered approach to dealing with undocumented workers now in the U.S. amounts to what many would refer to as amnesty. Their approach is as follows:

Those illegal immigrants that have been in the United States for 0-2 years would be deported; those who have been illegally in the United States between 2 and 5 years would have to return to the border for processing and then reenter the country receiving a work permit; those who have been in the country for 5 years or more illegally would be able to obtain a legal status by paying a fine and meeting some other requirements.

So many have been concerned about this because it does mean that you could enter the country illegally and gain a legal status while still in the United States, which again many people would refer to as amnesty. So there is obviously tension between the House and the Senate bills, and the concern right now is that there may not be a bill that will be suitable to both bodies that can be achieved in conference.

The big concern I think, in the House at least, is what has been referred to as the three-tiered approach in the Senate. And, obviously, most people who are here illegally at the present time are going to claim they have been here 5 years. It may be very difficult to ascertain how long somebody who is undocumented has been in the country because they are undocumented. It is very hard to ascertain what records are valid, which are not, and how long they have actually been here.

As a result, I have introduced legislation that could represent some common ground. This obviously will be controversial. No one agrees entirely on how we might go about bringing the two bills together, but I have introduced a bill called H.R. 4065, and the basic requirement are as follows:

It would require illegal aliens to return home to apply for a visa. In other words, they would have to return to their country of origin and apply at their home country consulate. Much of the paperwork could be done in the United States before they leave here, but it would have to be stamped in their home country. They then could reenter the country with a legal status and cross that border with papers as documented workers.

Secondly, this would provide for a 3-year visa which is conditional on continuous employment. It would be renewed every 3 years. This would be open to undocumented workers with, first, a demonstrated U.S. employment

history. They would have had to have been somebody who is employed in the United States, has been employed satisfactorily, good recommendations by the employers, and then no felony convictions or any other major record of criminal activity or history.

So this would satisfy the argument that these people have come into this country illegally, remained here, and have gained a legal status. They would have to return to their country of origin.

So it establishes a new W visa for those who are classified as undocumented workers but have gone through these steps and stages at the present time.

Congressman Pence has also introduced legislation which calls for illegal immigrants to leave the United States, report to centers located outside the country before reentering the country with a guest worker visa, which is somewhat similar to what I am talking about here. So this is not necessarily a novel or new idea, and many people have taken a look at it.

The requirement for all illegal immigrants to leave the United States and enter into the U.S. legally with a W visa may serve as a way to create common ground between the House and the Senate bills.

It is important that an immigration bill pass this year. I think the American people are expecting it and hope it will happen. Yet we are so far apart in the two bodies that this may be difficult to effect.

So H.R. 4065 may serve as a catalyst to compromise and final passage. I would like to have my colleagues at least give it some consideration because we will have to think outside the box a little bit. I think it will take some innovative solutions to this problem. It is something that again is something that is really important for this body to accomplish before the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 318) supporting responsible fatherhood, promoting marriage, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 318.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 318, and I would like to congratulate Representative Sullivan on this resolution. The upcoming celebration of Father's Day is time to reflect on the role that fathers play in the development of our children and the stability of our families, and an ever-increasing amount of research supports what common sense has told us all along, that fathers are essential for children's development.

Unfortunately, far too many children today are growing up without the presence of their father, with 24 million children in our country, approximately one-third of all American children, living apart from their biological fathers. Even more alarming, 40 percent of those children, with absent fathers, have not even seen their fathers in the last year. Given what we know about the importance of fathers for children, this statistic is truly alarming.

In my previous profession, I saw firsthand the increase in fatherlessness and witnessed this devastating effect on the young men I worked with. I was excited to receive a call one day from one of my player's fathers who wanted to reestablish contact with his son after many years' absence.

I was really excited and went and found the player, told him his dad had called. I knew that he hadn't seen him for 15 or 20 years. So I told him about this call. I remember the player saying this: he said, you know he really didn't care about me when I was little, and now he only wants to see me because I am doing well in football. The player didn't even call his father back after 20 years. So fatherlessness has become very real to me because of those experiences.

Research performed by the National Fatherhood Initiative has indicated that children, both boys and girls with involved loving fathers, are more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem and avoid high-risk behaviors. But just as the presence of a loving father has positive overwhelming effects on a child, the lack of a father carries extremely negative effects.

Children who live absent their fathers are two to three times more likely to use drugs, experience behavioral problems, be victims of abuse, and engage in criminal behavior.

A few years ago, a greeting card company offered free cards to inmates from a prison to send to mothers on Mother's Day. Nearly all the prisoners took the offer and sent cards to their mothers. So the greeting card company was somewhat encouraged by the success and they decided that they would then make the same offer when Father's Day came around. They offered free cards to send to fathers on Father's Day, and they had zero takers. There was no one in that prison who wanted to send a card to his father on Father's Day, which is a real indictment, I think, of the situation in regard to fatherlessness of those who end up in prison.

It is also important for fathers to foster close, caring relationships with their children. Additional research from the National Fatherhood Initiative suggests that adolescents are less likely to smoke, drink or use drugs if they have a close relationship with their father, and adolescents in intact families are also less likely to be negatively influenced by their peers or engage in delinquent behavior.

So what can be done to improve the state of fatherhood? Perhaps the simplest answer can be found in a sound marriage. It is the basic social contract between parents that provides the optimal environment for raising children.

Research by the Fatherhood Initiative says that the concept of marriage is well-supported in America. In fact, nearly 90 percent of survey respondents disagreed with the statement that marriage is old- fashioned and outmoded. Clearly, there is support for the idea of marriage among Americans, yet at the same time half of all first marriages in our country end in divorce. This is linked to the stability of our families, indicating that we must work harder to make sure that marriage and fatherhood is encourage and supported in our society.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my opening remarks, that from my perspective, working with young people for over 36 years, the greatest crisis, the greatest threat facing our country today is not problems with the economy, is not al Qaeda, but it is simply father absence. If we could undo that extreme difficulty with our society, we would solve probably 80, 90 percent of our social problems in our country.

So I strongly support H. Res. 318 and urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Davis for his participation. It seems like we often are involved in these kinds of issues together.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, people in my district, which is largely rural, want and need broadband services just as much as people in urban areas; yet according to a recent report, almost half of rural Nebraska communities only have one broadband Internet provider and some have none.

Without the help of the Universal Service Fund, the average Nebraskan living in a rural area would pay an additional $235 each year for telecommunications services, and this is true across the country in rural areas.

The Gutknecht-Stupak amendment would preserve FCC authority to require VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund and pay appropriate fees, just like every other service provider. This commonsense amendment is the result of numerous hearings, briefings and meetings hosted by the Rural Caucus over the last year and a half.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate their leadership and efforts on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.