[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 104 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6739-H6744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MAJOR TOPICS IN THIS FALL'S ELECTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, there seem to be three major topics which 
will be determining factors in this fall's elections, and these are: 
the conflict in the Middle East, the economy, and values in cultural 
issues. I will attempt tonight to discuss each one of these areas, 
hopefully in a somewhat accurate, factual, and dispassionate manner. I 
will start with the situation in the Middle East.
  One thing that we often notice as we watch the nightly news is 
relatively little discussion of Afghanistan; and by almost any measure, 
Afghanistan has been a major success. The Taliban has been removed from 
power, the Soviet Union left Afghanistan after several years of war, 
unable to conquer the Taliban; and we took them out in a matter of 
weeks with a loss of roughly 100 troops. The terrorist training camps 
have been destroyed. Terrorist funding in Afghanistan has been largely 
disrupted, and the terrorist leadership has been rendered largely 
ineffective throughout that whole country, which is roughly the size of 
Texas. The country is reasonably stable and has been stabilized with a 
very small coalition force of approximately 15,000 troops, again in a 
country the size of Texas.
  This is a remarkable achievement. The Loyal Jurga, the constitutional 
convention, has been accomplished. Even with all of the rival warlords 
and tribal factions, they did come up with a constitution that is pro-
democracy and seems to represent all factions within the country. So it 
was a remarkable achievement.
  Karzai is certainly a very effective leader. They will have general 
elections on October 9, and certainly Karzai will have some opposition. 
But if he is elected, and I think that he will be, we will have a very 
powerful ally. And I think most people would have to say that this was 
an almost unheard of accomplishment in a period of a little over a year 
and a half. So Afghanistan has been a truly amazing accomplishment and 
one that I think that we can be very pleased with.
  There are still some negatives there. There still is somewhat of an 
opium crop, and that has to be dealt with. A few hundred Taliban and al 
Qaeda forces are still active, but most have been driven back into the 
mountains.
  Iraq, of course, is another subject; and we have heard that discussed 
by two or three other speakers on the House floor this evening. There 
is no question that there is a great deal of controversy about weapons 
of mass destruction, and there is no question that some of the 
intelligence that we have received regarding weapons of mass 
destruction has not been accurate.
  I would say that most of the Members of this House at one time or 
another were invited over to the Pentagon, and we went over in groups 
of 10 or 15 or 20 or 30, and we were shown aerial reconnaissance photos 
of Iraq. Most of these were satellite photos. They were remarkably 
clear. You could read a license plate from outerspace because of the 
clarity. We were told, and I believe that the people giving us the 
briefing absolutely believed what they were saying, that this building 
here was where anthrax was being created, this was where foot and mouth 
disease was being experimented with, these trucks were going here, and 
these ammunition dumps were here and so on.
  The problem was that our intelligence on the ground was very 
ineffective. We were relying heavily upon Iraqis for our information, 
and many of those Iraqis had an axe to grind. They wanted to get rid of 
Saddam Hussein; and, therefore, whether they deliberately did it or 
not, I do not know, but obviously some of the information that we 
received was not very accurate. So this has been certainly a major 
concern.
  However, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and most U.N. countries had 
very similar intelligence, and that is why we had 17 United Nations 
resolutions based on the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction. So this was certainly not a miscalculation that was done 
by the United States alone.
  One of the main difficulties that we had was that intelligence 
spending in our country was cut during the 1990s; and, as a result, the 
expenditures on intelligence were roughly cut in half, and that 
certainly reduced our capabilities. So there is plenty of blame to go 
around, and many people have been busy pointing the finger over the 
last several months. However, the key issue at this point is not what 
happened in the past, but where do we go from here.
  While I was in the Middle East, I had a conversation with a young 
captain from Nebraska, my home State, and this young man's name was 
Christ Ferdico; and he said two things that made sense to me. First of 
all, he said, you know, it is better that we fighter terrorists here in 
the Middle East than fight them in the United States. So he was saying 
that by being on offense, we have occupied the terrorists' attention 
and resources, and there is no question that we have. Some people have 
said we have made the world a more dangerous place. But, obviously, the 
financial resources, the military resources, a lot of the planning has 
been diverted from this country and other countries to the conflict in 
the Middle East, so we have not had an attack in this country since 9/
11. It does not mean we will never have another attack, but it 
certainly means that we have, to some degree, diverted some of the 
attention from this country.
  The second thing this young man said to me which I found to be 
interesting and I believe to be true, he said, I hope the American 
people do not lose patience. We tend to be a very impatient Nation. We 
want our problems solved yesterday. We sometimes do not want to pay a 
very great price to achieve something. And so the impatience of the 
American people certainly is a concern. Again, we heard some of that 
debate earlier from some of the other speakers.
  We have lost at this point approximately 1,000 soldiers in Iraq. One 
is too many, and every one of those soldiers from my district that have 
been lost I have attempted to call their wives, their husbands, their 
parents and talk to them personally. It has been very interesting 
because I thought at some point I would run into bitterness or run into 
acrimony. Certainly there was sorrow, but there was also pride in every 
one of those phone calls. Every one of those families said, you know he 
really believed or she really believed in what he or she was doing. 
They were really proud of the effort, and we are very proud of them and 
their willingness to sacrifice.
  In the Civil War, Mr. Speaker, we lost roughly 400,000 troops. At 
Antietam it was 20,000 in one day. During World War II there were 
approximately 450,000 soldiers who died. In Korea, roughly 50,000. In 
Vietnam, 60,000. In those two conflicts we really do not have much to 
show in any way by way of accomplishment. That is not true with this 
particular conflict that we are involved in today.
  So, again, I do not want to in any way minimize the sacrifice of 
those 1,000 soldiers; but it is important historically to keep this in 
perspective in terms of what has been accomplished and in terms of the 
loss of life, which has been relatively small when you look at all of 
the wars that have been fought over the history of our Nation.

  A few months ago, I talked to soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kuwait, and 
in Iraq. We visited the hospital in Ramstein, Germany, Landstahl, where 
most all of the casualties, the seriously injured troops from the 
Middle East were taken, and then more recently here at Walter Reed. I 
was really amazed at how positive they were. Some had been seriously 
injured. Some had even lost limbs, arms or legs. The prevailing 
sentiment was that they wanted to get back to their units.
  Now, many of them would not be able to do that. And I thought at some 
point

[[Page H6740]]

I would run into somebody in all those travels that would tell me, you 
know, this was a terrible mistake. We should not have done this. I do 
not know why you put us over there. That did not happen. So there seems 
to be a great deal of pride and a great sense of mission on the part of 
these young people.
  So some might pose the question: Well, why would they feel that way? 
Has anything good happened? We talked a little about Afghanistan; but 
in Iraq, for instance, more than 20,000 reconstruction projects have 
been completed and a great many of them have been with the aid of our 
troops. Crude oil exports are estimated to be $8 billion worth of 
exports in 2004, which would be approximately prewar or maybe even 
exceeding prewar levels.
  The average household income in Iraq has doubled over the last 8 
months. Most Iraqis feel very good and very confident about their 
economic future. Businesses are springing up where normally there was 
no free enterprise at all previously. Today, there are more than 1 
million automobiles more in Iraq than before the war. We have cleared 
roughly 17,000 kilometers of waterways for irrigation in 2003. Thirty 
to forty percent of the marshes drained by Saddam are now restored.
  In the health care area, 85 percent of the children have been 
immunized. Most of them had never been immunized previously in their 
lifetime. All 240 hospitals in Iraq are now open and functioning. There 
are 1,200 clinics in operation, and 30 times more money is being spent 
in Iraq today on health care than under Saddam. His people had abysmal 
health care under his regime.
  As far as education is concerned, 2,500 schools have been 
rehabilitated. New desks and books have been brought in, and 32,000 new 
teachers have been trained. School attendance is up by 80 percent in 
Iraq, and in a great many of these schools girls are there for the 
first time. Iraq has the highest illiteracy rate of any Arab country, 
roughly 77 percent in the female population, so for the first time many 
of these young women are attending school.
  Power generation continues to be a problem, but still we are 
generating more power today than before the war. There is still 
occasional brownouts or blackouts, but it is better than it was.
  There are 230,000 police, military individuals, guards, that have 
been trained. Most of them are employed, some are still in training; 
but we do feel that a great deal of progress has been made in that 
respect.
  Of course, everyone knows there has been a transfer of power to the 
Iraqi interim government. These are very, very brave people. They are 
under constant attack and surveillance, and we have to hope that they 
can be somewhat successful. Elections will be scheduled this January, 
and of course that will be a tremendous milestone. The whole Middle 
East, I believe, is looking at this experiment to see whether it can be 
successful or not, and that is why we see so many attacks from the 
insurgents. They absolutely do not want to see a democracy succeed in 
that part of the world.
  The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I have formed 
something called the Iraqi Women's Caucus. Sounds like kind of a 
strange thing for a former football coach to be involved with; but we, 
in a conversation, came to believe that women tend to be a little less 
violent than men, and currently 60 percent of the population in Iraq is 
female because so many men have been killed. So we thought is there 
anything that we can do to help the Iraqi women be elected to office, 
or at least a certain percentage of them.

                              {time}  2115

  So we have brought Iraqi women to this country to teach them about 
democracy, about how they might be elected to public office, and some 
minimal funding has been given to these organizations. I have tried to 
spend time and speak to each one individually. Some of them are highly 
educated and speak English, some of them I speak through an 
interpreter, but the prevailing sentiment I get is things are better 
now. One lady said, we do not understand what all of the uproar is 
about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was the ultimate 
weapon of mass destruction.
  Many of these women had family members who were killed, had seen 
rapes in front of their families, had undergone and seen tremendous 
atrocities. They feel almost unanimously the Iraqi people are relieved 
and grateful to see Saddam Hussein gone.
  They also say that the future is brighter now. They feel definitely 
things are better, and they see some light at the end of the tunnel.
  So the major sources of information that I have tried to use as I 
evaluate that situation is a little bit of personal experience, but 
mostly what I have gleaned from talking to the soldiers who have been 
there and who are there and talking to Iraqi citizens who are there 
now, I feel that the picture I have gotten is quite different than what 
we get on the nightly news. Certainly not all of the news is good, and 
I do not want to hide our head in the sand and pretend everything is 
perfect. There is no question that security over there is very 
problematic, and the Iraqi women tell us that. The Iraqis we talk to 
say that security is the number one issue that they are faced with. But 
still, a tremendous amount has been accomplished.
  A Gallup poll done a few months ago in Iraq clearly said that 80 to 
90 percent of the Iraqis see a brighter future. About 80 percent would 
like to see some type of democratic government, a parliamentary type of 
government like they see in Europe, or something like what we have, and 
most of them would like to see their country no longer under a 
coalition force. But they also realize it is too soon; this is 
something that cannot be done at the present time.
  As I look at the situation, I feel that failure really is not an 
option, because if we were to pull out of Iraq at this time, number 
one, we will have dishonored the nearly 1,000 soldiers who have lost 
their lives. As I have talked to their families, as I have mentioned, 
it would be a terrible thing to talk to one of those families and say, 
we are leaving now, and the death of your soldier really went for 
naught. I do not think we can afford to do that. They felt there was a 
meaning and a purpose in going there, and we have to honor their lives 
by making sure that there is a favorable outcome.
  Number two, we will condemn thousands of Iraqis to death. Almost any 
Iraqi who has helped the coalition will certainly be sentenced to some 
type of very poor future, probably death. There is a strong likelihood 
of a civil war breaking out, which would be a bloodbath, and we 
promised the Iraqis that we would not do that. After the first Gulf 
War, hopefully we learned our lesson. So we have told them we will 
stick with them and see it through.
  The third thing that would happen if we pulled out is this country 
would become more vulnerable to terrorism, because any time you show 
terrorists that their methods are successful, it only invites more 
terrorism. It does not involve appeasement, it does not solve anything, 
it only escalates the problem. We cannot allow them to see that 
terrorism works.
  We have heard a great deal about Abu Ghraib and some of the things 
that have not gone well in Iraq, but I would like to tell Members, Mr. 
Speaker, about a young man named Troy Jenkins and what he did last 
April. Troy Jenkins was one of our soldiers. A young Iraqi girl 
apparently either had in her hands or was standing near a cluster bomb, 
and no one knows for sure whether she was innocent and did not know 
what she had, and apparently Troy Jenkins assumed she did not know. He 
threw himself on that cluster bomb and saved that girl's life and 
probably several of his comrades. We do not hear much about Troy 
Jenkins and the soldiers who have been willing to risk danger every day 
to do some of the reconstruction projects.
  I think it is well that we remember that there have been many acts of 
heroism. Some great things have been accomplished. It has not been a 
universally successful operation, but still more good has occurred than 
bad.
  The second thing I would like to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, which 
seems to be a matter of some controversy, is the economy. As with the 
war in Iraq, we find that perception often does not match reality. Some 
characterize the economy as being very poor. We hear this being 
discussed all of the time. I would like to mention just a few factors 
which I think are important to consider at this point.

[[Page H6741]]

  Referring to this chart on my left, interest rates currently are the 
lowest in the last 40 years. Of course, low interest rates generally 
stimulate economic growth and investment. Inflation is again at 
historic lows. The Producer Price Index is roughly 1.5 percent over the 
last 12 months. There was a time not too many years ago when we had 
double-digit inflation. No economy can sustain that type of inflation. 
The inflation level now is very low. Productivity expanded 5 percent 
over the last 4 quarters. We think that is the highest in the last 20 
years.
  In the manufacturing sector, which we hear a lot about, employment 
reached a 30-year high in May. So the manufacturing sector is 
recovering, and employment is certainly rebounding.
  Housing, homeownership was 68.6 percent last quarter. That means more 
than two-thirds of Americans now own their own home, an all-time high. 
Again, that is an encouraging sign.
  Members may say if all of these things are true, what is the problem 
with the economy? There has got to be something wrong. The thing that 
we hear most often is the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is 
out of sight, and people simply do not have any jobs. So we might again 
refer to a chart here.
  During the decades of the 1970s, for that 10-year period, the average 
unemployment rate was 6.2 percent. During the 1980s, average 
unemployment went up to 7.3 percent. During the 1990s, which was an 
exceptionally favorable period of economic activity, if we listen to 
most people, particularly some Members speaking on this floor, the 
unemployment rate was 5.8 percent. Today, in 2004, the unemployment 
rate is 5.4 percent, lower than any one of those decades. If we average 
that 30-year period from 1970 to 2000, the average unemployment rate 
was 6.4 percent. Today it is 5.4 percent. That is not perfect. Mr. 
Speaker, we would like to see that down around 4.5 or something like 
that, but it is very difficult to get there. It certainly is much 
better than it has been historically for the last 30 years. I think 
that is important to realize.
  Mr. Speaker, unemployment runs roughly 9 to 10 percent in the 
European Union. Many of us feel that the European Union countries are 
doing well, but their unemployment rate is roughly double what we are 
currently experiencing. We added 144,000 new jobs in July. So over the 
last 12 months, we have added 1.7 million jobs in this economy. Some 
will say, but since the President took office, we are still down about 
700,000 jobs. We lost about 2.5 million, we got 1.7 million back, so 
this President is a failure. I do not necessarily think that is true, 
because we had 9/11. We had a recession going on when the President 
took office, and we had the corporate scandals. So a lot has hit this 
economy, but it is certainly going in the right direction. It looks 
like it is recovering.
  In 2003, and this is something that very few people have stopped to 
think about or talk about, we had more Americans employed at the end of 
2003 than at any time in history. What has happened is some of those 
roughly 2 million Americans who lost jobs started to work for 
themselves. So we had more people employed when we went to the 
household survey than ever before. So we talk about lost jobs, but many 
people have started their own businesses and are not destitute or out 
of work.
  Another myth which has been circulating here recently is that all of 
the tax cuts that were passed have not impacted the middle class. Some 
have said that the middle class is now paying more than before the tax 
cuts. That is absolutely not true. Every segment of the tax-paying 
economy is paying less in taxes than before the tax cuts. So currently 
an average middle-class family making $35,000 or $40,000, a wife, 
husband and two children, pays today $1,948 less in taxes than before 
the tax cuts. If you are making $35,000 or $40,000, and you have $2,000 
less to pay, that is significant, and that is going directly to the 
middle class. So whether you are talking about the top bracket, the 
middle bracket or the lower bracket, if they paid taxes before, they 
are paying less today. So it is important to realize that the average 
American citizen has received a substantial tax cut.
  The most troubling factor, I think, as far as the economy is 
concerned which faces this country is well within the domain of 
Congress, and that is high energy prices. That is the one thing that we 
continually see affecting jobs, the stock market, and the economy in 
general. So I would like to address that very quickly because it 
affects trucking, airlines, agriculture, individuals, and yet one of 
the most discouraging things to me is we cannot get an energy bill 
passed in this Congress. The House has passed an energy bill, we have 
passed the conference report, but still it has not passed the other 
body. Until it becomes law, we all have failed to some degree.
  I would like to flesh out briefly for one second some of the main 
provisions of the energy bill which I think would be so important as 
far as the economy is concerned. This is really something that lies at 
the feet of not Republicans or Democrats, it is all of us.
  A key part of the energy bill is renewable fuel standards which 
provide for solar energy, wind energy, ethanol, and biodiesel. These 
are all ways to avoid being so dependent on foreign oil. Also, hydrogen 
fuel cell research and development is part of the energy bill, and most 
people feel this is the wave of the future. It is environmentally 
friendly and leaves no greenhouse gases. So if we want to develop 
hydrogen fuel cells, we need an energy bill because this is the 
stimulus that will cause this to happen.
  In Alaska, the natural gas pipeline, we have tons of natural gas. We 
have thousands of tons of natural gas in Alaska at the present time, 
and yet we are experiencing a tremendous shortage of natural gas in 
this country today. So it affects fuel prices, it affects heating 
prices, fertilizers and all of the different things which impact our 
economy. If we can build that pipeline from Alaska bringing that gas 
down here, our economy is going to recover very quickly.

                              {time}  2130

  It is going to take a little time, 2, 3, 4 years; but it needs to be 
done. Then, of course, tax incentives to increase energy production. 
This country basically has not done much in exploration for additional 
oil reserves, energy reserves, nuclear power over the last 20, 30 years 
because of environmental regulations. We have to have some incentives 
to get this thing going again. Our refinery capacity has been reduced 
by roughly 30 percent over the last 15, 20 years. With those 
reductions, we put ourselves in a bind. We are now 60 percent dependent 
on foreign oil. We cannot continue to operate that way because 
projections have that going from 60 percent to 70 percent within the 
next few years. The buck stops here. It stops with Congress, and the 
blame game and partisanship is inexcusable. It simply needs to be done.
  On balance, Mr. Speaker, having said all of this, I think it is 
important to realize that this is the strongest economy in the world. 
Regardless of what anyone says, it is not perfect; but the economy by 
most measures, by most standards, is very strong at the present time 
and appears to be getting stronger.
  We have talked a little bit about the Middle East, and we have talked 
about the economy. The last topic I would like to cover has to do with 
the third significant factor, I think, which will bear upon the 
upcoming elections and that has to do with the culture. I was 
privileged to hear British Prime Minister Tony Blair speak in this 
Chamber a year ago. One comment that he made made particular sense to 
me. He said this: ``As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a 
time invincible but, in fact, it is transitory.'' What he was saying, I 
believe, is that there is sort of an illusion. When you are on top, 
when you are the predominant country in the world, the most powerful 
country in the world, it seems like that will go on forever. But he 
says, Great Britain has experienced this, and we know that this is 
transitory, that all power is eventually transitory. It does not last 
forever.
  I would like to explore that thought a little bit tonight because 
history teaches that most of the world's great powers are not overcome 
by external military force but, rather, disassembled from within. Let 
us examine three such instances. First, we might take a look at Rome. 
That is a long time ago, about 2,000 years; but it certainly was the 
most dominant civilization. As a

[[Page H6742]]

matter of fact, it ruled the whole civilized world at one time about 
2,000 years ago and appeared to be invincible, but eventually it fell 
from preeminence.
  Some of the incidents that are given by historians are a little 
disturbing. They said there was a general decline in morality. There 
was increasing corruption and instability in the leadership of the 
Roman Empire. An increasing public addiction to ever-more violent 
public spectacles. In the Roman Colosseum, as you know, the masses had 
to be entertained, and it got bloodier and it got bloodier. Increasing 
crime and prostitution and a general population that became more self-
absorbed, apathetic and unwilling to sacrifice for the common good. I 
do not know if any of that rings home or not, but to me it is a little 
disturbing when you read that list.
  Then, of course, Great Britain, the British Empire, dominated the 
world from the late 1600s through much of the 1800s, and this is what 
Tony Blair was talking about. That empire eventually slowly crumbled. 
The reasons given by historians were that they lost the national 
resolve to maintain their territory, which was spread all around the 
world, a great colonial empire, the values that led to ascendency 
eventually were eroded and the spiritual underpinnings shifted in that 
nation.
  Then Russia more recently, only 20 years ago, one of two great 
superpowers at that time, in a matter of months Russia disintegrated 
before our very eyes. Alexander Solzhenitsyn reflected on this fall 
when he observed this: ``Over a half century ago, while I was still a 
child, I recall a number of older people offer the following 
explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia.'' He said 
this: ``Men have forgotten God. That's why all of this has happened.'' 
Marx and Lenin had dismantled Russia's religious heritage and their 
value system and Russia, even though it continued to do well for a 
number of years, had a broken foundation and eventually collapsed like 
a house of cards with nothing to sustain it.
  Some of the common themes of these three great world powers and their 
historical collapse would be the following: citizens are less willing 
to sacrifice for others and for their country, citizens become more 
self-absorbed, a greater desire for the state to provide for their 
welfare, less personal responsibility, a weakening of commonly held 
values, and a decline of spiritual commitment.
  What does all of this have to do with the United States and our 
present situation, Mr. Speaker? We certainly have the most powerful 
military. We have the strongest economy and the most stable government 
of any nation in the world today. And so it is easy to think that we 
are truly invincible. However, as Tony Blair stated, ``As Britain 
knows, all predominant power for a time seems invincible but, in fact, 
it is transitory.''
  Is there reason for concern? Is there any reason to think that maybe 
we ought to pay attention to the current situation? I would say that 
there are some things over my previous 36 years spent in coaching and 
working with young people that have given me pause. I would like to 
mention some of these trends that I find disturbing. The young men that 
I worked with from roughly 1962 through 1997 were more talented each 
year. Yet they showed more signs of distress, more personal struggles. 
We spent more time with them off the field than we used to, and with 
some players off the field was really more intensive than on the field. 
There was less moral clarity as time passed and just generally a higher 
level of troubled young people.
  This chart that I am going to show you reflects some of the 
dysfunction that we have seen and an alarming trend. From 1960, the 
number of juvenile court delinquency cases increased by between 400 and 
500 percent, just a steady upward trend, until the late 1990s. Several 
factors, I believe, contributed to these changes. First of all, family 
stability has eroded considerably. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock 
birthrate, Mr. Speaker, was 5 percent, one out of every 20 young people 
born. Today, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 33 percent, one out of 
three. And so one-third of the young people coming into our population 
have two strikes against them. Some of them somehow or another adapt, 
weave their way through, make it okay; but it is much more difficult.

  In 1960, the great majority of children lived with both biological 
parents. Today nearly 60 percent of our young people will spend at 
least part of their youth without both biological parents. So at least 
half, and maybe more than half, of our young people have suffered some 
major trauma in their family life. Only 7 percent of today's families 
are traditional families. I use quotation marks around the word 
``traditional'' because only 7 percent today are traditional. A 
traditional family would be where one parent, primarily the father 
usually, works full-time and one parent, usually the mother, but not 
always, would be home with the children. And so when the children come 
home from school at 3 o'clock, generally nobody is home and so the 
hours from 3 to 6 are the most dangerous and the most troubled hours of 
the day for our young people in our culture at this particular time. 
Parents spend 40 percent less time with children than they did a 
generation ago. The divorce rate has increased 300 percent since 1960. 
This is a big one, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-four million children today live 
without their real father.
  Fatherless children, according to research, show the following 
tendencies: number one, they are more likely to be abused, girls or 
boys. They are more likely to have mental and emotional problems. They 
are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. More likely to commit 
suicide, commit a crime, or be promiscuous. The foundation of our 
culture, the family, is under assault. The family is the basic social 
unit. Some are surprised when there is concern about how marriage is 
defined. Many people say this is bigotry, this is religious 
fundamentalism, this is narrow mindedness.
  The concern that I have and I think a great many people have is not 
against anybody. The concern is for children, because it takes a mother 
and a father to create a child. According to nearly all of the research 
I have seen, and there is a lot of it, to have an adequate family and 
to have a healthy child, the best chance you have is to have a father 
contribute to the rearing of that child and a mother contribute to the 
rearing of that child. It takes both, each one, a male and a female, to 
contribute something to the stability and the education of that child. 
We feel that it is important that we think this through, because some 
countries have redefined marriage. As they have done so, we have seen 
less traditional marriage, we have seen more children born out of 
wedlock and more children living in dysfunctional situations. If you 
want to preserve the culture, if you want a strong country, you 
absolutely must have strong families. You must have children who grow 
up in a healthy way.
  Mr. Speaker, that is one reason why many of us have some concern 
about this particular issue. The family structure, the launching pad, 
is certainly not as stable as it once was. There are some discouraging 
signs. The difficult thing now is that we are taking those young people 
from that launching pad and we are releasing them into an environment 
that is much less friendly than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago.
  In 1960, when I first started coaching, working with young people, 
drug abuse was almost unheard of. Today, of course, drug abuse is of 
almost epidemic proportion. Even in rural areas, an area I represent, 
methamphetamines, which are tremendously destructive, are very common. 
Another type of drug which ofttimes flies under the radar screen is 
that of alcohol abuse involving underage drinkers. A National Academy 
of Science study shows that alcohol kills 6\1/2\ times more kids than 
all other drugs combined. And so we are scared to death of cocaine and 
ecstasy and methamphetamine, and we should be; but when all is said and 
done, roughly 6\1/2\ times more children die from alcohol abuse than 
all the other drugs put together.
  Alcohol underage drinking costs the U.S. $53 billion annually, 
roughly 2\1/2\ times what we spent to rebuild Iraq. We have 3 million 
teenage alcoholics. As I said, by far the biggest drug problem, and one 
of the major concerns is that children are starting to drink at younger 
and younger ages. The average young person today takes their first 
drink of alcohol at age 12.

[[Page H6743]]

  Unfortunately, underage drinkers tend to binge drink. They drink on 
average, at an average sitting, twice as much as an adult; and, of 
course, alcoholism is achievable much more quickly under those 
circumstances. Alcohol and the drug issue is a big issue.
  In addition, we have the most violent Nation in the world for young 
people, the highest homicide rate, the highest suicide rate, and the 
second-place country is not even close. Pornography has exploded. There 
are over 1 million porn sites on the Internet. According to the London 
School of Economics, nine out of 10 children ages 9 to 16 have viewed 
pornography on the Internet and mostly unintentionally. Corporations 
such as AT&T have in the past been involved in the hard-core 
pornography business. Some of our more respectable businesses, and I 
say respectable in quotes, have gotten into this business.
  Many of us are somewhat dismayed by the way the FCC is regulating 
obscenity on the Nation's airwaves. I would have to say they are doing 
better. They have made some attempts to see things differently since 
the Super Bowl; but it took that, the Super Bowl half-time show, to get 
their attention. Video games, of course, are very violent. Some of them 
are very antisocial and of course much music, some television, many 
movies are graphic. The content of some of these media programs simply 
could not have been presented to the public 30 years ago.
  I have grandchildren ages 5 to 12, and I guess anyone who has young 
children or grandchildren is concerned about this. The family is less 
stable, the environment is more threatening, and our value system has 
shifted. Stephen Covey in his book, ``Seven Habits of Highly Successful 
People,'' reviewed all of the literature that had to do with success 
during the history of our Nation. He came up with something that was 
rather interesting. He said during that first 150 years of our Nation's 
existence, all of the research and all of the articles that he could 
find, nearly all of them, defined success in terms of character traits. 
A successful person was honest, a successful person was hardworking, 
faithful, loyal, compassionate and so on.
  Then he said about 50, 60 years ago, things began to shift. What he 
noted was that success was no longer defined in terms of character.

                              {time}  2145

  Success had to do with material positions, how much money one had, 
how much power one had, how much prestige or celebrity one had. So it 
is very possible under this current definition to be labeled a success 
and really not be a very good person, not be a very sound person.
  So character apparently today has very little to do with whether a 
person is called successful or not. And, of course, we have seen a 
discouraging lack of integrity in the business world: Enron, WorldCom, 
Global Crossing. We have seen some of it in the press, some of it in 
athletics, some of it in the church, some of it in politics in the last 
few years. So the value system has shifted.
  Philosophically, the predominant world view that we see today in our 
culture is something called postmodernism, and it is especially 
prevalent on college campuses. And what postmodernism says is that 
there are no moral absolutes; everything is relative. So in the right 
circumstance, theft is okay; incest is certainly understandable, 
excusable; murder, adultery, treason. There are no moral absolutes. 
One's truth is one's truth. My truth is my truth. And there are no 
standards to which we can hang our moral compass.
  So in view of the family breakdown, the decline of the culture, and 
shifting values, this is an extremely difficult time to be a young 
person, perhaps the most difficult time in our history, and we are 
asking them to weave their way through a minefield littered with 
alcohol and drug abuse, harmful video games, music, TV, movies, 
promiscuity, gangs, violent behavior, and broken homes. And I think it 
is important that we pay attention to this because this has to do with 
the strength of our culture. So this is one reason, I believe, why the 
President has seen a real need for mentoring, because in the absence of 
caring adults in the lives of young people, mentoring seems to be about 
the next best thing that we can do.
  So a mentor is someone who cares unconditionally. A mentor is one who 
affirms, who says, ``I believe in you, I know you can do this,'' and 
everyone at some point needs affirmation. And a mentor is one who 
provides guidance, who tells someone that they have this talent, and 
they can see them going to a community college, that they can see them 
developing their artistic ability or their athletic talent or their 
music or whatever. Everyone needs somebody who sees something in them. 
So we need to pay close attention, as no culture is more than one 
generation away from dissolution.
  Two hundred years ago, de Toqueville made an astute observation, and 
this is what he said: He said, ``America is great because America is 
good,'' and he was referring to the large number of churches and civic 
clubs and youth groups and individuals reaching out to help those who 
were less fortunate when he said this. And he was referring to the 
inherent decency of the American people. He was referring to the basic 
ethic, ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' And de 
Toqueville wrote 200 years ago, as I said, and I guess the question we 
have to ask is, are his observations true today? Some are; however, 
there are certainly disturbing signs of change.
  I will conclude today, Mr. Speaker, by discussing a couple of 
concerns that I have with the courts, and I think, as I go through 
this, I would like people and the Speaker to consider, as the election 
approaches, what candidates, what people would be most likely to 
address some of the dysfunction that we have discussed here, some of 
the concerns that we have about our culture, and some of the things 
that our young people are enduring.
  In regard to the first amendment, we have found that there are some 
court decisions that at least some, including myself, would question.
  In 1996 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, that was the 
overwhelming majority of people in this body, that made it illegal to 
send indecent material to children via the Internet. But in June 1997, 
the Supreme Court overturned portions of the law. They said this: 
``Indecent material is protected by the first amendment.'' So indecent 
material is protected.
  In 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention Act outlawed child 
pornography, including visual depictions that appear to be of a minor. 
In other words, this was simulated, computer-generated child 
pornography. In April 2002, the Supreme Court declared this law 
unconstitutional and overturned the law.
  In October 1998, the Children Online Protection Act was passed by 
Congress, signed into law, and it prohibits the communication of 
harmful material to children on publicly accessible Web sites. The 
Supreme Court refused to rule on the 1998 law, and it prevented it from 
being enacted.
  The 106th Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, 
which requires schools and libraries that receive Federal funds to use 
Internet filtering to protect minors from harmful material on the 
Internet. In May 2002, a Federal court declared the law 
unconstitutional.
  So free speech, indecent speech is protected, while many of our women 
and children are being attacked, because 80 to 90 percent of pedophiles 
and rapists use pornography on a regular basis.
  So the argument is what people see and what they hear really does not 
harm anybody. This is just something that is out there in space. And if 
that is true, then why do we spend each year as a Nation billions of 
dollars on advertising? The reason is obviously that what people see 
and what they hear and what they read does affect behavior. It has a 
great impact on behavior. So there is some concern about these issues.
  Another first amendment issue that is a major concern is the issue of 
separation of church and state. Many people assume that that is in the 
Constitution, separation of church and state, but actually what the 
Constitution says in the first amendment is this: ``Congress shall make 
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.'' So the establishment clause simply says that 
Congress, this body, cannot create a state religion and cannot prevent

[[Page H6744]]

somebody from practicing a religion. That is what it says. So we have 
taken that and run with it.
  So in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled the following prayer as being 
unconstitutional, and this is what the prayer said: ``Almighty God, we 
acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, 
our teachers and our country.'' I do not want anyone to believe that I 
am saying that a teacher ought to get on a PA system, or the 
superintendent, or a teacher ought to get up in class and proselytize 
or try to promote a particular religious agenda. I do not believe that 
at all. But it seems to me that many of the rulings that we have had 
have taken us far afield from what the Founding Fathers originally 
espoused.
  Benjamin Franklin said this: ``We have been assured, Sir, in the 
Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in 
vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that without 
His concurring aid, we shall succeed in the political building no 
better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, 
partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we 
ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.''
  And he goes on to say this: ``I therefore beg leave to move that, 
henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing 
on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we 
proceed to business.'' So that is the inception of why we have a prayer 
on the House floor and in the Senate every day before we begin 
business. And obviously Ben Franklin was one of the Framers of the 
Constitution, and yet he did not seem to see that prayer was to be 
abolished.
  George Washington said this: ``The propitious,'' or favorable, 
``smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a Nation that disregards 
the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has 
ordained.'' So when he talks about eternal rules of order and right 
which Heaven has ordained, obviously he is talking about some immutable 
principles. He is talking about some values which do not shift with the 
sands and the whims of individuals. So he obviously would not agree 
with postmodernism.
  David Barton, the historian, says this: ``Franklin had warned that 
`forgetting God' and imagining that we no longer needed his `concurring 
aid' would result in internal disputes, the decay of the Nation's 
prestige and reputation, and a diminished national success. Washington 
had warned that if religious principles were excluded, the Nation's 
morality and political prosperity would suffer. Yet, despite such clear 
words, in cases beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court offered rulings 
which eventually divorced the Nation, its schools, and its public 
affairs for more than three centuries of heritage. America is now 
learning experientially what both Washington and Franklin knew to be 
true; we are suffering in very areas they predicted.''
  So in referring to the establishment clause, I would like to just 
make a couple of observations: In 1992, that the Supreme Court ruled 
that an invocation and benediction at a graduation ceremony in a high 
school was unconstitutional. The Court held that a minute of silence in 
a school was unconstitutional. In a minute of silence, somebody might 
look out the window, somebody might think about their history test, 
somebody might say a prayer, but certainly this was not infringing, I 
would not think, on anyone's religious principles. In a student-led 
prayer at a football game, the students had voted that they wanted a 
prayer before the football game, a student would lead the prayer, and 
the Supreme Court said that is not constitutional.
  So the thing that has happened is that we have seen some jurists who 
seem to have taken what I would say great liberty with the 
Constitution. So the Constitution is increasingly interpreted as a 
``living document,'' in quotes. So the Constitution is not interpreted 
as it was written, but rather as Justices believe it should be written 
and as it has become. So this ``living document'' hypothesis has 
changed things dramatically.
  The makeup of the courts and the will of Congress will greatly 
influence whether we continue to drift further from our spiritual 
heritage or draw close to those values upon which our Nation was 
founded. I believe that November's elections will directly influence 
not only the makeup of the Congress, but also ultimately the nature of 
the courts, and this is something I think we need to pay close 
attention to.
  So there is no question that we are engaged in a cultural and 
spiritual struggle of huge proportion. Much is at stake. I can only 
hope that the principles upon which this Nation were founded remain 
preeminent.

                          ____________________