Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as many people know, we frequently talk on the floor here about the state of the economy. However, it seems to me that much of this criticism is unfounded. We currently have historically low interest rates. Inflation is at 1.9 percent which, again, is almost at an all-time low. Economic growth is exceptional, 12 percent in the fourth quarter. Productivity increase is the highest in the last 40 years. And recently we have heard that government revenues are increasing, which means that we may have $100 billion less deficit than was originally forecast.

The majority of the criticism seems to focus on joblessness which currently stands at 5.6 percent of American workers and is decreasing. This is certainly a figure we would like to see better, like to see it improved. But I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the decade of the 1970s the average unemployment rate was 6.2 percent; during the 1980s, it was 7.3 percent; during the 1990s it was 5.8 percent. So for that 30-year stretch from 1970 to 2000, we averaged 6.4 percent unemployment. Today it is at 5.6 percent. In April we added 280,000 payroll jobs. We have added 867,000 since January, and 1.1 million since last August.

Those who decry the overall strength of the economy would appear to be in error. My thesis is that this is the strongest economy in the world and is generally doing quite well. However, Mr. Speaker, one segment of the economy is currently very troubled. I would like to point to the graphic here which I think illustrates this. Currently the dark areas, the red, the yellow, the brown and the deep brown are areas of drought in the country. This would be bad enough if it was just this year, but this is something that has been ongoing now for 5 years. Throughout that area, those who are raising dry land crops have had practically no crop at all. The reservoirs which are used for irrigation are now down to 25, 30 percent. Many of them will run dry within a year.

I think it is important that we look at what is happening to the farm economy. This is a natural disaster. We sometimes readily provide assistance for fires, for floods, for tornadoes or hurricanes but not for drought. I guess the argument is that somehow a drought comes on slowly so it is not a natural disaster. But as far as those

people living in this part of the world are concerned, it certainly is a natural disaster.

One reason sometimes we are reluctant to give assistance for the drought is because it is assumed that there is a lot of money in the farm bill, that farmers are being taken care of maybe too well. I would like to call attention again to another graphic here which illustrates that the farm bill has really been functioning in a way that many people have not anticipated. The projected costs in 2002 were $14.3 billion. In actuality it cost $13.2 billion. In 2003 the projected costs were $18.6 billion. Instead it cost $12.1 billion, a saving of roughly $6.5 billion less than projected. In 2004 the projection was $17.5 billion and now it looks like it is projected to come in at about $10.1 billion. Out of a $50 billion expenditure that was predicted, we are actually going to spend about $35 billion.

The point is that we would hope that maybe out of that $15 billion shortfall that we think is certainly good for the country and good for the taxpayer, that maybe at least some of that, a little bit of that could go back to those who have really labored under this drought.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by urging Congress not to ignore the largest ongoing natural disaster facing the United States today, which is the extended drought, and I would also like to hope that Congress would not fail to appreciate those who provide the world's best, the safest, and the cheapest food supply of any place on this planet.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Mr. Andrew Jackson Higgins whom President Eisenhower once said is ``The man who won the war for us'', referring to his development and production of Patrol Torpedo (PT) boats that landed on the shores of many beaches during World War II.

Andrew Jackson Higgins was born on August 28, 1886, in Columbus, Nebraska, to John Gonigle and Anna Long (O'Conner) Higgins. His innovative mind showed itself at an early age, and by 12 years old, he was motivated to build his first craft in the basement of his home. The shallow water boats that floated along the Loup and Platte Rivers during his childhood inspired him.

His passion for boats did not stop in his childhood; Mr. Higgins organized Higgins Industries, Inc. in 1930, to build boats for his lumber business. He began designing boats because of navigation problems he encountered involving the moving of logs in shallow waterways. The structure of these shallow boats eventually led to the development of the PT boats and their capability to travel in shallow water.

He also created PT boats, which were also known as Higgins Boats. Higgins Boats, constructed of wood and steel, transported fully-armed troops, light tanks, field artillery, and other mechanized equipment essential to Allied versatile operations including the decisive D-Day attack at Normandy, France. He continued to design boats and eventually engineered over 20,000, including rocket-firing landing craft support boats, high-speed boats and various types of military landing craft.

Following the D-Day attack, thousands of lesser-known assaults employed Higgins Boats, which included landing on the beaches of Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Okinawa, Leyte, and Guam. Mr. Higgins not only specialized in landing craft such as PT boats, but also constructed freight supply ships and airborne lifeboats that could be dropped from B-17 Bombers.

The production of Higgins Boats enabled Mr. Higgins to establish four major assembly plants in New Orleans for mass construction of landing craft and other vessels vital to the Allied forces' conduct of World War II. He also trained over 30,000 Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard personnel on the safe operation of landing craft at the Higgins' Boat Operators School.

Mr. Higgins had another great accomplishment during World War II that established a progressive social policy at Higgins Industries Inc. He employed a fully integrated assembly workforce of black and white men and women. His policy was equal pay for equal work, decades before integration and racial and gender equality became the law of our land.

In 1964, the former President Dwight D. Eisenhower said of Andrew Jackson Higgins, ``He is the man who won the war for us. If Mr. Higgins had not developed and produced those landing craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.''

Mr. Higgins enriched the lives of everyone fortunate enough to have known him. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, we extend our deepest appreciation to Mr. Higgins' family and friends. Please join me in honoring Mr. Andrew Jackson Higgins, an exceptional individual who dedicated his life to the service of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of H.R. 27, which was introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and thank the gentleman for his long and effective service to Congress over many years. He has done a great job and has been very helpful to me and other people in Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 50 small public housing authorities in my district that will benefit from this legislation. I think the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) mentioned there are 60 in the State of Nebraska. My district is almost entirely rural. Most of these PHAs are very, very small, and so we have the vast majority in this particular district.

As the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) mentioned, this legislation is needed to simply provide some regulatory burden relief to small PHAs which do not have the time or staff or resources to do housing and urban development plans by themselves. Many of these PHAs have only a part-time executive director, and they hire consultants. Sometimes these PHAs are spending $600 to $1,000 a year just for a consultant's fee, and the complexity and length of the reports are ridiculous for the size of the PHA.

If a small PHA in my district is able to create the report, they often have difficulty in filing that report because the Internet dial- up systems are extremely slow, and often they are disconnected before their reports are filed.

So this bill really does what Congress oftentimes fails to do, which is to provide some much-needed regulatory relief. It simplifies rather than complicates the process. I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for introducing this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House floor. I urge its support.

Mr. Speaker, this evening we honored the Connecticut men's and women's basketball teams for winning national championships, a truly remarkable accomplishment to have two teams from one school do this. Not long ago, the National Academy of Science released a report on preventing underage drinking. This seems like disparate events, but they are actually connected.

The National Academy of Science report recommended that colleges and universities ban alcohol advertising and promotion on campus in order to discourage alcohol use among underage students.

Research points out the problem of alcohol consumption on college campuses. First of all, 1,400 college students are killed annually in alcohol-related accidents, and we have all anguished over the fatalities in Iraq, over 700. Well, more than double that number will be killed on college campuses this year because of alcohol abuse.

The proportion of college students who say they drink to get drunk is rising. In 1993, roughly 40 percent of college students reported binge drinking.

By 2001, that figure had risen to 48 percent. Mr. Speaker, 70,000 students are victims of alcohol-related sexual assaults each year. Most of these are date rapes. More than 500,000 students suffer alcohol- related injuries annually.

Despite these statistics, a total of $53 million in 2001 and $58 million in 2002 was spent to place ads in college sports programs by the alcohol industry.

The 2002 NCAA basketball tournament had more alcohol ads then the Super Bowl, the World Series, college bowl games, and Monday Night Football combined. Alcohol advertising made up more than twice the percentage of ad spending on college sports of all other television programs in 2001 and 2002. Recent riots at the University of Connecticut and Iowa State, as well as some of the recruiting scandals we have heard about on college campuses, have been fueled largely by alcohol.

A spokesperson from the NCAA recently said, ``Alcohol advertising is not inconsistent with our mission.'' I beg to differ. The NCAA handbook states that NCAA policy should exclude ``advertisements that do not seem to be in the best interests of higher education.''

As a result of the mixed messages our colleges and universities are sending, I have introduced House Resolution 575 calling upon NCAA member schools to voluntarily ban advertising on college sports broadcasts. This is simply a resolution. It is something I hope that Members of Congress will get behind because we think we need to call attention to the inconsistency of policies that our colleges and universities are promoting.

Dean Smith, the former North Carolina basketball coach who set all kinds of coaching records said this. He said, ``If aspirin were the leading cause of death on college campuses, do you think chancellors, presidents, and trustees would allow aspirin commercials on basketball commercials on telecasts. They wouldn't, not for a minute.''

I recently speak to Coach John Wooden, who won 10 NCAA basketball championships in 12 years; and he wholeheartedly endorses taking alcohol advertising out of college sports. So I would agree with Dean Smith and Don Wooden, because over 36 years on college campuses, I saw case after case where alcohol was the biggest problem that we encountered.

Apparently others agree: 84 percent of Americans think advertising beer on college games is not in the best interests of higher education; 71 percent of Americans support a ban of alcohol ads on college games; 77 percent of parents say it is wrong for colleges to profit from alcohol advertising while trying to combat alcohol abuse on their campuses.

The problem outlined by the National Academy of Science study goes beyond the college campus. I think this is certainly worthy of note, Mr. Speaker. Underage drinking is a serious issue in our middle schools, in our high schools and, in some cases, in our elementary schools. We have over 3 million teenage alcoholics in our country today. By the end of the eighth grade, 47 percent of students have engaged in heavy drinking. Most eighth graders are 13 years old. Children who drink before age 15 are four times more likely to become alcohol-dependent than those who wait until after 15. Underage drinking kills 6.5 times more youth than all other illegal drugs combined; and yet this problem flies largely under the radar screen. Underage drinking costs the American taxpayers each year more than $50 billion. Despite these numbers, the Federal Government spends 25 times more on combating drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, and heroin than on preventing underage alcohol use.

I urge my colleagues to pay attention to this serious problem, as we are going to shortly introduce some legislation to combat this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, not long ago the National Academy of Science released a report on preventing underage drinking. This week, the Final Four NCAA basketball playoffs will occur. I believe there is a connection. The National Academy of Science report recommended that colleges and universities ban alcohol advertising and promotion on campus. Other important research points to the problem of alcohol consumption on college campuses. For example, the proportion of

college students who say they drink to get drunk is rising. It is almost one-half. Underage drinking costs the United States $53 billion annually. There are roughly 3 million teenage alcoholics in our country. Despite these grim statistics concerning underage drinking, alcohol advertising accounts for more than one-half of college sports advertising revenue. The 2002 NCAA basketball tournament had more alcohol ads than the Super Bowl, World Series, college bowl games, and Monday Night Football combined. The basketball tournament has more than 16 times the rate of alcohol advertising as normal programming.

A spokesperson from the NCAA recently said such advertising is ``not inconsistent with our mission.'' I guess I would beg to differ with that statement. The NCAA statement of purpose indicates that part of its mission is to prepare student athletes for lifetime leadership. The NCAA handbook states that NCAA policies should exclude advertisements that do not seem to be in the best interests of higher education.

In view of the fact that nearly one-half of college students are binge drinkers; 1,400 college students die annually from alcohol- related incidents, which is the leading cause of death on the college campus; more than 70,000 students are victims of alcohol-related sexual assaults; 500,000 students are injured each year while drunk; recent recruiting scandals at NCAA schools were often alcohol-related, I would have to say that there is great inconsistency in linking college athletics with the alcohol industry. The 12-, 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds watching the tournament this weekend will witness great athletes display their skills. These young people will identify with those athletes, and they want to be like them. Sandwiched into the telecasts will be many ads promoting alcohol; and most of the ads will contain attractive young people, celebrations and sometimes adolescent humor. The connection between players on the court and the alcohol advertising will be subtle, but it will be very real.

Dean Smith, my friend, the former North Carolina basketball coach, said this: ``If aspirin were the leading cause of death on college campuses, do you think chancellors, presidents and trustees would allow aspirin commercials on basketball and football telecasts? They wouldn't, not for a minute.''

I spoke today with John Wooden, in my time maybe the greatest coach of all time. He won 10 NCAA basketball championships in 12 years. John said that he wholeheartedly endorses taking alcohol advertising out of college sports. Andy Geiger, the Ohio State athletic director, opposes alcohol advertising. Eighty-four percent of Americans think advertising beer on college games is not in the best interest of higher education. Seventy-one percent of Americans support a total ban of alcohol ads on college games. Seventy-seven percent of parents say it is wrong for colleges to profit from alcohol advertising while trying to combat alcohol abuse on their campuses.

The alcohol industry will counter by indicating how much money they spend to curb underage drinking. However, in 2001 the alcohol industry spent a total of $811 million on product promotion and only 1 percent of the ads promoted responsibility. The placement of their ads and the content of their ads cater to a youthful market. Young people always represent future customers.

I do not advocate Congress legislating NCAA matters. The NCAA is a voluntary organization and such legislation should be left to the schools. And I do not believe that eliminating alcohol ads on college sports will end underage drinking. However, I do urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 575, expressing the sense of the House that the NCAA should affirm its commitment to a policy of discouraging alcohol use among underage students by ending all alcohol advertising during radio and television broadcasts of collegiate sporting events.

Hopefully, this resolution will help college administrators see the untenable position they now occupy and move to end current alcohol advertising.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and, of course, their staffs.

I think this is a good bill. I am certainly in full support of it. It is a bipartisan bill and makes several needed changes to child nutrition. I would like to mention two of those that have particularly caught my attention.

Number one, it creates a grant program to educate students about wellness through a teen nutrition program. I guess it has been my experience that so few young people really understand what a balanced diet looks like, and so I think the educational component is very important.

Number two, it requires nutrition and physical education programs to be based on dietary and physical fitness guidelines issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. So we need some science-based standards because there are so many fad diets, fad exercises out there. Unless we have some uniform system, some uniform science-based standard, we are not going to do very well, and that bill does address that issue.

As has been mentioned over and over again, childhood obesity has doubled over the last 2 decades. This is due to two factors, one, poor nutrition, and number two, lack of exercise. The average child spends 6 hours a day watching television, playing with the computer or doing video games. So we see arteriosclerosis, we see diabetes occurring at earlier and earlier ages.

Obesity currently costs the United States $117 billion annually, and this figure is only going to continue to escalate, as has been pointed out previously, unless we curb childhood obesity. The best way to combat child obesity, the epidemic, is through education at an early age and promotion of physical activity. This bill takes steps to do that.

I certainly support it. I urge support of H.R. 3873.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the rule and the resolution.

Obviously, much has happened in Iraq since the war began a year ago. The military occupation of Iraq was amazingly swift and efficient, taking only a few weeks. Since then much has been accomplished, and I would like to point out just a few things that I think are noteworthy.

More than 200,000 Iraqis are now involved with security operations. U.S. troops have been reduced by 20,000. Most importantly, an interim constitution has been approved, including a bill of rights. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I have formed an Iraqi Women's Caucus, and we are pleased to see that Iraqi women will be given an active role in new government, after experiencing years of brutal oppression, with at least 25 percent representation. More than 17,000 reconstruction projects have been completed. The 240 hospitals are open, and I think something else worthy of note, health care spending has been increased 26 times higher than under Saddam. Ninety percent of the children are now immunized. Electricity and water are being rapidly restored and improved. Oil production has increased dramatically. Schools and universities are operating following a massive infusion of school supplies. Private enterprise is increasing dramatically. Seventy percent of Iraqis now say that things are going well, and they see a brighter future.

I just came from a meeting downstairs where we met with seven Iraqis who are over here as part of a delegation. One of those gentlemen saw three of his brothers executed and his father executed; their heads were chopped off. They talked about people who had been buried alive. I guess it is one thing to stand here and to debate and to talk; it is another to meet with people who have really experienced the pain and the suffering that was imposed by Saddam Hussein and to understand the gratitude that these people have for the military operation that has been going on in Iraq.

Reconstruction has certainly been difficult. There have been bumps in the road, as has been true throughout history. Reconstruction is much further along right now than it was for Germany and Japan following World War II, and I think we need to not lose track of these accomplishments.

There should be no disagreement, I believe, in this body that American troops are doing a remarkable job and deserve our total support. Also, I feel that there should be no disagreement, that we must see this conflict through to a successful resolution. It is important that we present a unified front in this body. I think recent events in Spain will indicate the danger of being fractionated, of sending mixed messages to terrorists. So I am hopeful that we can demonstrate a unified position.

As a young captain told me on a recent visit to Iraq in Afghanistan, it is better to fight terrorists here than in the United States. I agree wholeheartedly. Support the resolution and the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for introducing this bill. I think that is standard fare. You always thank people who author these. But, believe me, this is something that many citizens across this country greatly appreciate because it actually introduces some meaningful penalties for indecency, something that has been lacking for a long time.

This bill, as I see it, is not really a reaction to the Super Bowl half-time show, as maybe the chairman pointed out. It is a reaction to the 240,000 complaints that were filed regarding indecency at the FCC in the year 2003. As a result of those 240,000 complaints, only three notices of violations, with minimal fines, were ever compacted. So, essentially, complaints of indecency have been largely ignored.

Also, this is a reaction to the fact that Bono issued four epithets and no violation was found because he used these as adjectives. So also the FCC has suspended no broadcast licenses in the history of its existence.

The Super Bowl half-time show, I think, did serve a purpose because it offended mainstream America. It gave tracks to the bill, and the outcry reached unparalleled proportions.

I feel that the strength of a Nation is measured by its adherence to standards of decency and civil discourse. During the last few years, we have been embarked, as many have said, on a race to the bottom. The standard of decency in place for roughly 200 years of our Nation's history has been shattered, and this has been an alarming trend.

DeTocqueville said, ``America is great because America is good.'' One of the greatest threats to our culture is that America will no longer be a decent, moral, good society. This bill will help reverse an alarming trend. I urge passage, and I would like to thank the committee, and particularly thank the authors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his kind words and his support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I share very similar Districts, very large districts.

My district has 68 counties, 160,000 square miles. It is the third or fourth largest district in the United States. As a result, veterans who need health care must often travel several hours, sometimes hundreds of miles, to access VA health care. Sometimes this is as much as a 3-day trip, a day down, a day at the facility and a day back, and the problem is that usually transportation is very difficult to access. A person has to have a son or a daughter or a friend or somebody who can take off work for 2 days or 3 days to provide that transportation. So it is a tremendous hardship on a number of people.

Often, all a veteran needs is to adjust medication, have a blood pressure test, receive an EKG or take a blood analysis. So these are very simple, routine matters that still take tremendous resources to have attended to. Routine medical care could be handled at the local hospital or clinic where that person resides or near where that individual resides, and this would require minimal travel time, minimal waiting time for an appointment because sometimes these appointments, you have a waiting time of 3, 4, 5, 6 months and also minimal expense.

So I looked at various options to address this problem and developed H.R. 2379, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act. H.R. 2379 would encourage the VA to use its authority to contract for routine medical care with local providers for geographically remote veterans who are enrolled in the VA. They must be enrolled in the VA previously in order to access the provisions of this bill.

So how will it be funded? The VISN director will use the funding for acute or chronic symptom management, non-therapeutic medical services and other medical services as determined appropriate by the director of the VISN after consultation with the VA physician responsible for primary care for the veteran.

H.R. 2379 sets aside 5 percent of the appropriated VA medical care allocation in each VISN to be used for routine medical care for geographically remote veterans. We are talking about taking just 5 percent of the funding and setting it aside for veterans who live at some significant distance from a VA facility.

H.R. 2379 uses 60 minutes travel time or more as an initial determinant, but there is also an exception to the legislation if the VA finds it is a hardship for a veteran to travel to a VA facility, regardless of how long it will take. It is conceivable that somebody might live only 30 or 40 minutes away but because of age or severity of illness or whatever it may be much more convenient to attend a closer facility that would enhance that person's health.

I want to assure veterans, this legislation is not a voucher program. My legislation allows only enrolled veterans who have been approved by the VA to seek routine care from a local provider.

Reducing demands for routine care could also help with appointment backlogs in VA facilities, which are significant at this time.

According to the CARES Commission report, the benefits of contracting are, it can add capacity and improve access faster than can be accomplished through capital investment. In other words, building new facilities is not nearly as efficient as letting them use preexisting local clinics or hospitals. It provides flexibility to add and discontinue services as needed and allows VA to provide services in areas where the small workload may not support a VA infrastructure, which is very much the case in my district and in the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Stenholm), and this was for highly rural veterans.

During the hearings, the CARES Commission received testimony stating that contracted care improves access and that there was little dissatisfaction with contracted care. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2379 and help our rural veterans as they access VA health care.

Mr. Speaker, as we have listened to debates over the last several days, actually last several weeks, there has been a lot of rhetoric about how poorly things are going in Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration has no plan, et cetera, and along with many other Members of Congress, I visited both countries within about the last 5 or 6 weeks, and it did not seem to me that the information I was getting and seeing squared with what we have been hearing.

In Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban is out. They were a tremendously oppressive regime. Terrorist training camps, and of course, Afghanistan was the hotbed of terrorist activity, have been shut down. Most of the funding has been dried up. Al Qaeda is on the defense, and of course, the democratic loyal jurga formed a constitution which I think was a tremendous step toward democracy. Women have been given a significant role. Elections have been scheduled this summer, and they have a great leader in Karzai, and I think there is a great chance he will be elected President.

All of this has been accomplished with 13,000 coalition troops controlling this country, very little loss of life. It has been a tremendous military victory and a great victory for those who are opponents of terrorism.

Iraq, of course, is a little behind the time line of Afghanistan, because it came several months later; but the infrastructure has been restored.

The water is running, the electricity is on, and 17,000 reconstruction projects have been completed; 17,000 projects have been completed. The schools are open. They have been given significant aid; 33,000 teachers have received training in just the last few weeks. The hospitals and clinics are open. There is much better health care. There has been a 6,000 percent increase in health care service expenditures in the last few months. The economy is expanding. Shops and businesses are springing up. Consumer demand is good. Wages are between 25 and 30 times higher than they were under Saddam Hussein. So the economy is showing real signs of life. One million more cars in this country than a year ago. Newspaper and television stations are springing up as well.

Insurgent attacks on our troops have decreased dramatically. About all the attacks we are hearing about lately are on Iraqi citizens, mainly because they are the only soft targets that they have left. Weapons and ammunition supplies have been destroyed, and an Iraqi army of 133,000 is being trained and should be in place by next fall. An Iraqi police force is assembled. And all but a handful of Saddam's lieutenants have been captured. I think 45 out of 50 have been captured and, of course, Saddam Hussein himself.

A provisional constitution has been drafted and ratified, just today, I believe, by the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunis. This is a tremendous step toward democracy and a tremendous accomplishment. So we are on track to see a viable democracy in a country that has been a major destabilizing influence in the Middle East for the last number of years. We have had no attacks in the U.S. since 9-11.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate the fact that what I and many of my colleagues have witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq does not seem to square with some of the conversation we have been hearing on the political scene in recent months and recent weeks. So we think that we have been doing a good job over there.

The soldiers, the troops that I met, have a tremendous sense of mission, a great sense of accomplishment; and I think it is important that they get the message that we are solidly behind them and solidly behind this effort that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tremendously positive contributions of teachers across the state of Nebraska. Our teachers are hard-working, dedicated public servants who serve on the front lines of our society. I have worked extensively with the Nebraska State Education Association (NSEA) as well as the National Education Association (NEA). I have worked closely with the NSEA and its educator-members and the NEA here in Washington on many issues of mutual concern. Teaching is the most important job in the world. Our teachers deserve our appreciation and respect.

Mr. Speaker, 100 million people viewed this year's Super Bowl. It was a great football game. Unfortunately, most of the publicity did not focus on the football game, it rather focused on the half-time show and a few ads. Matter of fact, there were 200,000 complaints concerning some of the indecency that were filed. I think this illustrates the culture war we are currently experiencing, because most in the entertainment industry really could not understand the outcry. This is pretty much business as usual. Yet those in middle America were not quite so enthralled. They were hit right between the eyes by the media content that our children are immersed in almost daily.

Many Members of Congress, myself included, were concerned and somewhat outraged, and I just am concerned that this outrage may be short-lived if we look at the history of such things. In 2003, 240,000 complaints were filed with the FCC concerning indecent and obscene programming, yet there were practically no responses by the FCC or by Congress. Few of these complaints were even answered by the FCC. Complaints are often bundled, they are not counted separately, so there may have been well over 240,000 complaints filed. Only a handful of citations were issued, which resulted in minimal fines, roughly four or five citations. No TV station has ever been fined in the history of the FCC for broadcasting indecent material. Since the FCC began in 1934, no broadcast license has ever been suspended.

The FCC receives $278 million from Congress annually, yet it is largely derelict in the enforcement of its duties. On June 2, 2003, the FCC increased the market share media conglomerates can control from 35 percent to 45 percent. What does that mean? It means in a major media market, one conglomerate can own three TV stations, one newspaper, and eight radio stations. So there has been a huge amount of concentration in the media industry.

As media control is more centralized, and there is less local control, there is more emphasis on indecent programming. There is a focus on the bottom line; simply what will sell. Locally-

owned outlets are more sensitive to community standards and are less likely to broadcast indecent material. Congress, I think, needs to reverse this trend towards concentration and move back to that 35 percent of the market that was originally the standard.

Our children are paying a price. The average young person by the age of 18 witnesses 200,000 violent acts and 40,000 murders on television. They average roughly 6 hours of media exposure per day. Research by the Congressional Public Health Summit in 2000 indicated that children exposed to media violence are more violent later in life; more apt to commit crimes of violence. Studies show that children watching sexually explicit programming adopt more permissive attitudes towards premarital sex and become more promiscuous.

Our out-of-wedlock birth was 5 percent in 1960, and today it is roughly 33 percent. One out of every three children coming into our culture are born with a huge disadvantage. They have two strikes against them. These children, and really all of us in our culture, pay a great price. So what I would urge, Mr. Speaker, is that Congress needs to stay the course, play its part, and hold the FCC to its charge.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and I have started a caucus, the Sex and Violence in Media Caucus, which we hope people will join. Several weeks ago, Bono uttered an obscenity four times during prime time, and the FCC refused to penalize the broadcast network because they said he used the obscenity as an adjective. As a result, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has introduced the bill Clean Airways Act, H.R. 3687, which defines eight obscene words, and it says if these words are used, no matter whether used as adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, whatever, they are still subject to penalty. Also, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has introduced H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which increases penalties for obscenity from $27,500 to $275,000, a tenfold increase, which may get some people's attention.

I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to hold the broadcast media to a higher standard and to require the FCC to enforce commonly held standards of decency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. We think this is an important piece of legislation. It seems to have fairly broad bipartisan support in most areas. Obviously this legislation reauthorizes the CSBG Act and preserves the CSBG as a State block grant program. The main issue here is that we do try to do some things that improve the quality of the block grant program.

First of all, State and local goals must be met by grantees, so there is some accountability, which probably heretofore has been lacking in some cases.

States monitor grantees to ensure that services are provided to those with the greatest need. Many times it has not in the past gone to those who are most destitute.

It streamlines reporting data to HHS to avoid duplication and eliminates extraneous information. I guess everyone likes to see less paperwork.

Also the States must either defund low-performing entities or justify to Labor-HHS why low-performing entities continue to be funded. So there is, again, an area of accountability.

In addition, this particular bill encourages initiatives to improve economic conditions in rural areas, which are often underserved, encourages education and youth crime prevention through youth mentoring, which saves money and lives by investing in young people before they are enmeshed in the criminal justice system, and, of course, it also allows faith-based organizations to consider religion while hiring, while ensuring that recipients are not discriminated against on the basis of religion. Also it continues to fund discretionary programs at current authorization levels and extends them through 2009.

I might just mention one story that I think pretty much illustrates the importance of this situation. A young mother in my district was abandoned by her abusive fiancee. She had no money, no car, no job, no family support, and a 5-year-old child. A Blue Valley community action crisis intervention program provided counseling, obtained housing, helped her find a job, and so she is now supporting her child, productively employed and preparing to own her own home. This is just one story that can be told thousands of times.

So I urge support of this bill. It provides those who have great need in the most efficient, most cost-effective way.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his kind comments regarding the overall worth of the bill. I am glad to see him back.

I really have three comments regarding the faith-based issue. First of all, I think that we need to recognize that there is legal precedent. And some of this has been discussed earlier. There are four different acts: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act; the Welfare Reform Act of 1996; the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000; the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998, which we have been discussing, which is current law; title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which we have been discussing; Supreme Court decisions such as Bowen v. Kendrick. So all of these provide sound legal support for the fact that faith-based organizations have a right to consider religion in determining hiring. And so we think this is well substantiated.

What time of night we voted on a bill should not have any bearing. We are accountable people. We cannot call Kings Acts because it was at a certain time of day.

We hear about special interests being involved in this, such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services. These are not really very powerful special interest groups, and I do not think we need to worry about them very much.

The second point I would make is this, and the chairman made this earlier, this is a bill that is working. And so often when we get down to where the rubber hits the road in this body, we want to quibble over details, and we do not want to worry about the big picture. The big picture is how many people in need are we helping? And, obviously, this bill has done a good job for the last 6 years. There have been minimal complaints. Matter of fact, we know of no legal challenge to this bill.

So why all the sudden now is this becoming a big issue?

The third point that I would like to make is simply that of return on investment. And we hear a lot about budget deficits and our tax dollars and how they are being spent. Well, let us take a look at this because I think this is important. I will give you a case history from my district.

One agency has total funding of $8.5 million; $250,000 of this comes from community service block grants. That is 3 percent of the total. This particular agency serves 12,000 people. So if you prorate that, that means an average of $700 goes to each recipient. The community service block grant would then serve 350 of that 12,000.

Now, let us take, say we took that $250,000 community service block grant and said, okay, we got to go rent a building. We have to go hire 3 employees. We have to get a car. We have to buy some computers. We have to get some telecommunications going. You would eat up the whole $250,000 getting started. You would serve nobody.

What we are doing is getting more bang for the buck. I think everybody can understand that. We are not hurting anybody. I think it is important to understand that.

I think it is also important to understand that if faith-based organizations are not allowed to maintain hiring practices where faith is a consideration, obviously, many will leave the program. So they would be open to lawsuits regarding a hostile environment due to religious symbols and art. So if somebody has a picture on the wall that is a religious connotation, and somebody does not like it and they have been hired and they do not understand the mission of that organization, they can file a lawsuit because of a hostile environment which makes it almost impossible to function.

Also, as the chairman pointed out earlier, many faith-based organizations have employees with multiple responsibilities. So the music director at a church may also run the Head Start program. A youth pastor may run the food pantry. If you have multiple responsibilities, you obviously have to have people in place who understand the mission of that particular church or organization, and you cannot say, well, we need to have somebody who is socially acceptable and politically correct, but is actually the antithesis of what that particular organization wants to hire. You cannot do that.

Also, they could lose their tax-exempt status because tax-exempt status is provided to entities which share a common faith. So if you have to hire people that do not share that common faith, then how are you going to maintain that tax exemption? So we often assume the worst about faith-based organizations. I think this is a mistake.

The overwhelming majority of faith-based organizations hire people who agree simply with their mission. They hire people of other faiths but they want to make sure they understand the mission.

Dr. Nelson testified before our committee. She runs a faith-based organization in Chicago. She says their mission is based on a passage from the book of Isaiah that refers to justice and compassion. So obviously they hire a broad spectrum of people from many different faiths that simply aspire to that mission.

So this organization should not be forced to hire those who do not agree with the mission. That is simply what we are saying. We do not think there is widespread discrimination anyway.

Lastly, I will say this: The Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Helms set forth the proposition that members of religious organizations should always be presumed to be acting in good faith. It seems to me that we are doing exactly the opposite here. We are assuming that members of religious organizations act in exactly the opposite, they operate in bad faith. I do not think they do this. That is why for 6 years we have not had complaints. This is working. So we think we have a good bill. We think we need to pass it, as written, and we would urge a vote against the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003. H.R. 3030 reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant Act (CSBG). The Community Services Block Grant program distributes Federal money to more than 1,100 Community Action Agencies nationwide that use those funds to lessen the effects of poverty.

In my congressional district, there are six Community Action Agencies: Blue Valley Community Action, Central Nebraska Community Services, Community Action Partnership of Mid-Nebraska (Kearney), Goldenrod Hills Community Services, Northwest Community Action, and Panhandle Community Services. Each of these agencies provide invaluable services to the citizens of Nebraska.

Many people have asked about what CSBG funds do. In short, CSBG funds provide the

glue that help Community Action Agencies coordinate funding and services across the spectrum of what families might need. An example of the success of the CSBG was shared with me by Shelley Mayhew of the Blue Valley Crisis Intervention. Shelley worked with a young mother with a 5-year-old child who was abandoned, with no money or car, by her abusive and violent fiance.

Unable to search for a job because of her inability to pay for childcare, lack of extended family support, lack of domestic violence services, and her lack of a car, since in rural Nebraska we have no mass transit system, this young mother was referred to Blue Valley Community Action Crisis Intervention. There, through the actions of staff at Blue Valley, the child was enrolled in school, the family received domestic violence counseling and found affordable housing, and the mother found a job that allows her to support her family. Today, this young mother is even enrolled in a program to help her prepare for homeownership. Shelley, the caseworker, says, ``I watched a family struggling and hopeless become self-sufficient and optimistic about the future. I feel very fortunate to be part of an agency that makes a difference in so many people's lives.''

This is just one story from my congressional district. H.R. 3030 preserves the CSBG as a true State block grant program, allowing States to establish and operate antipoverty programs that meet the unique needs of their low-income communities. It also retains the current definition of an eligible entity to include the grandfather provisions, but requires eligible entities to successfully develop and meet locally determined goals and meet State goals, standards, and performance requirements in order to continue to receive funds.

H.R. 3030 contains a number of important provisions:

Increases quality by requiring States to reevaluate funding the lowest-performing grantees. States are not required to defund these groups, but to explain why underperforming agencies should continue to receive funding. In addition, agencies are required to set locally determined goals and meet those goals and State goals, standards, and performance requirements.

Improves accountability by requiring states to take swift action to improve or defund low-performing entities that do not meet State and local goals.

Retains protections for faith-based charities. H.R. 3030 allows faith-based organizations to make employment decisions based on religion. I realize that this will be a topic of much discussion as we address this bill today, but I hope we can keep in mind that this is current law, signed into law by President Clinton. The bill does not permit federal funds to be used for the purposes of promoting religion. Rather, the CSBG funds under this bill can be used for secular purposes without compromising the essential character of the faith-based organization providing the services.

In addition, the bill maintains current overall funding levels as well as continues funding discretionary programs, including the National Youth Sports Program, which is particularly important to me.

I want to thank all the staff on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to craft the compromise language that was necessary to insure that H.R. 3030 met the needs of the local organizations that work so hard to provide services to all of our constituents.

I urge passage of H.R 3030 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), I recognize myself for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have been here all afternoon. I know the chairman of the committee has been here all afternoon. The main reason we have been here is we would like to see H.R. 3030, the Community Service Block Grant Act of 2003, passed.

I think most people here believe this is a good bill. It does provide needed services. There was a dust-up over the faith-based provision, but I think for the most part people are supportive.

We already have an unemployment compensation system. This amendment creates a new grant program. It creates a second system operated through Health and Human Services instead of the Department of Labor. What this amendment will do, it will certainly confuse consumers. It will splinter resources. It will weaken an already good bill. And furthermore, there is no money to fund the amendment. We would have to go through the appropriations process separately.

The amendment, in addition, is inconsistent with services provided under CSBG provisions. CSBG provides grants to States, not to individuals directly. So we have an entirely new system here and it alters the entire nature of the program.

Lastly, let me say something that is little bit controversial. I do not try to be partisan. I do not try to be controversial, but there are some numbers thrown around here about unemployment and I think that certainly many of those are accurate, many of them are very justified. However, we seldom hear the figures I am going to quote.

During 2003 we went from 137,447,000 jobs in the United States to 138,479,000 jobs, from January 2003 to January 2004. The unemployment rated dropped from 5.8 to 5.7. We would like to see it down at 2 or 3 percent, but it is dropping and it will probably continue to drop. So we feel that some folks that have lost their jobs have become entrepreneurs. Some have gone into business for themselves.

We understand the problems that the other side is trying to address. We simply do not believe this is the vehicle to do it. We would like to see the bill passed. We think that people need it, and we think that it is a well-written bill and I think will command widespread support, but this amendment certainly does not enhance the bill in any way.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 491) honoring individuals who are mentors and supporting efforts to recruit more mentors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 491.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the National Mentoring Month Resolution honoring those who give their time to mentor children.

Last night in this Chamber the President emphasized the threat of terrorism to our Nation's security, and I think all of us are aware of that threat. I would like to make a point that the major threat to our Nation's survival, as I see it, is not terrorism, as much of a threat as this is; but, rather, it is the trauma and dysfunction that is faced by so many of our children, because they are the future of this country.

Currently, roughly 50 percent of our young people are growing up without both biological parents. We have 20 million fatherless children in our Nation. I used to work with some of those young people. And when your father does not care enough about you to stay around to even see what you look like, it leaves a hole in your psyche that you are often times trying to fill for the rest of your life and usually filling it with all of the wrong things.

Currently, the United States leads the world in violence for young people: homicide, suicide, so on. We also are certainly very much addicted to drugs, alcohol abuse with teenagers, pornography. These are every day threats that our young people face. So having said all that, mentoring is the best-known remedy that many of us have for the social pathology that is harming our children today which threatens the foundation of our culture and our society.

Let me take a minute or two and mention what a mentor is. Some people hear the term and do not think about it very much. A mentor is someone who cares. Quite often children have some attention from fathers, mothers, grandparents, teachers and preachers and people who are paid to pay attention to them in some way or another. But a mentor is one who simply cares enough to show up and spend time with a young person and say unconditionally, I, someone who has no ax to grind at all, cares enough about you to show up every week or twice a week or whatever and spend some time and invest my life in your life.

A mentor is also someone who affirms. And I saw in my previous profession of coaching how important affirmation was. So often if you gave the player the message that he was not very good, that he did not measure up, that he was not going to make it, often times his performance would begin to play down to that level of expectation. But on the other hand, if you told him, I really believe in you, I see some promise in you, we think you have a great future, we think down the line you will be a great player, that player often times would perform at a level that he himself was not aware that he could perform at.

So that is essentially what a mentor does. A mentor affirms. He says, I believe in you. I see some potential here. I see some talent.

So many of our young people today have no affirmation in their lives, no one who is affirming who they are, what they are or what they can do.

Lastly, I would say a mentor is one who provides some directions and vision. So many young people are growing up in households today where they really do not have a role model who has shown what it is to get up and go to work every day, someone who takes responsibility, someone who finishes their education or someone who just finishes anything. A mentor is one who can say, I see a future for you beyond dropping out at the end of the tenth grade. I see a future for you beyond minimum- wage jobs, and you have this talent and you can do this.

So mentoring is very important, and I think it is important to realize also that mentoring works. We have currently a great deal of evidence that indicates that mentoring will reduce drug and alcohol abuse by roughly 50 percent, significantly reduces teenage pregnancy, teenage drop-out rates, teenage violence; and it improves self-esteem, grades, and relationships. And so it is the best thing that we have going, considering what our children are facing today.

The other thing to remember is that mentoring is cost effective. It costs roughly $300 to $500 to provide a good mentoring experience for a child, and it costs $25,000 to $30,000 to lock them up for a year. The average meth addict will commit 64 crimes a year, which is a huge cost to any community. So we feel that mentoring at the front end reduces a great many of the costs at the back end of the social process.

Two years ago, the first Mentoring for Success grants were awarded by the

Department of Education. And to give an idea of how important these grants were, we had roughly 10 times as many applicants as we had grants to award. So that $17.5 million that was awarded went very quickly and was well spent.

This fiscal year with the President's support, funding for mentoring has been increased in the omnibus bill, if we can get that passed, which includes mentoring for children of prisoners as well. It increases from $17.5 million to $100 million. So the President has put a significant emphasis on mentoring, which we think is very important.

The National Mentoring Partnership estimates that 2.5 million children have mentors in our country today, and roughly 17.5 million badly need a mentor. So we are mentoring just about 1 out of 10 that need it. But actually, almost every child could use a mentor. Most every successful person can point to a mentor in their life that has made a huge difference.

Congressional staff members are mentoring. One example is Horton's Kids. I would encourage Members of Congress to encourage their staff members to be active here on the Hill because this provides a great service and a great example. As we celebrate National Mentoring Month through January, I want to commend all who support mentoring by contributing their time and financial resources.

Working together one child at a time, we can make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

American Osteopathic Association,

Washington, DC, January 20, 2004.

Hon. Tom Osborne,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Osborne: As President of the American

Osteopathic Association (AOA), I am pleased to inform you of

our support for your resolution. The AOA, and the 52,000

osteopathic physicians it represents, extends its sincere

gratitude to you for your support and advocacy of mentoring

programs.

Andrew Taylor Still, M.D., D.O., founder of osteopathic

medicine, dedicated his life to improving the health and

well-being of his fellow citizens. Through a lifetime of

sharing his knowledge and experiences, he shaped the lives of

thousands of physicians and provided direction to an entire

profession. He was a mentor in the truest sense. Recognizing

the significant role of mentors and the contributions they

make to enhance the studies and careers of osteopathic

physicians, I have made my presidency the Year of the Mentor.

Throughout the year, we work to recognize those who have

contributed their time and talents to mentoring. In addition,

we work to enroll new mentors who will shape the minds and

talents of future D.O.s.

Your resolution, celebrating January 2004 as the Month of

the Mentor, supports efforts to honor mentors and increase

the number of individuals involved in mentoring programs. As

evidenced by the lives and careers of those who have been

mentored, mentoring positively impacts individuals and

communities. As a result of mentoring within the osteopathic

profession, beginning with our founder, patients benefit by

receiving quality care from physicians who have enhanced

their knowledge through the years of learning and experience

of their mentors.

On behalf of my fellow osteopathic physicians, I pledge our

support for your effort to promote mentoring programs. Please

do not hesitate to call upon the AOA or our members for

assistance on health care issues. Please contact the AOA's

Department of Government Relations at (202) 414-0140 for

additional information.

Sincerely,

Darryl A. Beechler,

President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his kind comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has been very supportive of mentoring; and we certainly appreciate all he does on the committee.

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments and his commitment to mentoring. Ofttimes we hear the complaint ``too busy,'' and yet I have found the time over the last 4 years, sometimes it is Saturday, sometimes it is a Monday, sometimes it is Friday, to meet regularly with a mentoree. I mentor a young person and also several members from my office have been mentoring here on Capitol Hill.

So, again, I would urge my colleagues to encourage their office staff to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I would like to especially thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), the gentleman from Connecticut (Chairman Simmons), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for their work on this bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest veterans health care issue in my district, which is largely rural, is access. We have a great many veterans who are driving hundreds of miles and sometimes many hours to a clinic; and as a result, many of them, particularly the oldest and the sickest, simply cannot get there. They do not have access. Also, of course, they are facing waiting lists sometimes of several months.

Mr. Speaker, what I did was I submitted legislation to provide vouchers for health care to local hospitals. That legislation is not in this particular bill. However, this legislation expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should take steps to ensure that an appropriate mix of facilities and clinical staff is available for health care for veterans residing in rural areas. I really applaud members for getting that in there, because I think that is badly needed.

In addition, the legislation also contains a requirement that 120 days after the date of enactment of this legislation, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House a report describing the steps the Secretary is taking to improve access to health care for veterans residing in rural areas.

So I applaud Members for getting that in there and also requiring at least a 120-day report. We appreciate this. I would like to thank my colleagues for including these important provisions, and thank them for this bill. I urge support.