[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25285-25289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  SOCIAL ILLS SEEN AS RUIN OF NATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunes). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to hear British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair speak in this Chamber a few months ago, and one 
comment he made particularly caught my attention. He said, ``As Britain 
knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but in fact, 
it is transitory.'' I think what he was saying is that essentially 
nothing lasts forever, including great nations.
  History teaches us that, most of the world's great powers are not 
overcome by external force, but rather disintegrate internally. And let 
us take a quick study of three such examples.
  Rome, of course, 2,000 odd years ago, stood astride the then-
civilized world and appeared to be invincible. Yet it fell from 
preeminence, and the reasons historians have given us, there was a 
general decline in morality, increasing corruption and instability in 
leadership, an increasing public addiction to ever more violent public 
spectacles, an increase in crime and prostitution, and a populace that 
had become more self-absorbed, apathetic, and unwilling to sacrifice 
for the common good.
  Then, of course, the country that Tony Blair was referring to, Great 
Britain, had a colonial empire that dominated much of the world through 
much of the 1800s, and, of course, that empire slowly began to crumble. 
The reasons that some have given for this demise was that Great Britain 
had lost the national resolve to maintain its territory, values that 
led to ascendancy were eroded, spiritual under-
pinnings were shifted at some point.
  The third example would be the Soviet Union, one of two great super 
powers as recently as 20 years ago, and in a matter of months, Russian 
disintegrated before our eyes. Alexander Solzhenitsyn reflected on this 
fall when he observed that, ``Over a half century ago, while I was 
still a child, I recall a number of older people offering the following 
explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia, men have 
forgotten God, that is why all of this has happened.''
  And so, Marx and Lenin dismantled Russia's heritage and value system. 
Russia's foundation was broken, and it collapsed like a house of cards 
with nothing to sustain it.

                              {time}  2245

  These are just three examples. I think there are many others that 
history is replete with that show the declines of some great nations, 
again without any outside military intervention. I think some of the 
common themes that we begin to see are that in cases like these, 
citizens are less willing to sacrifice for others and for country, 
citizens become more self-absorbed, a greater desire for comfort, for 
the state to provide for their welfare, a weakening of commonly held 
values and a decline of spiritual commitment in those countries.
  What does all this have to do with the United States and our present 
situation? I hope I am not overdrawing the case here, but I would have 
to say that right now we are certainly on top, we have the most 
powerful military, the strongest economy, the most stable government of 
any nation in the world and so it is easy to think, as Tony Blair 
mentioned, that we are invincible but also as he said, as Britain 
knows, all predominant power for a time seems invincible, but in fact 
it is transitory. I think that was a well-taken word of warning.
  Over 36 years of coaching and dealing with young people, I saw some 
very disturbing signs. I am going to take some time this evening to 
develop the theme that I saw occurring before my very eyes over that 
36-year period that I think certainly bode a sense of warning, at least 
as far as I am concerned. The young men that I worked with were more 
talented with each year, yet they showed more signs of stress, they had 
more personal struggles, and they had less moral clarity as the years 
went by.
  This chart here to my left reflects at least one alarming trend. In 
1960, which was about the time that I started working with young 
people, we had roughly 400,000 cases that were referred to the juvenile 
courts. In 1999, that figure was well over 1.6 million. I would say 
today in 2003, this is the most recent figures that we have, but I 
would imagine that by 2002, 2003, the caseload is much higher. That 
represents a 400 percent increase. I really do not care what figure you 
look at; you will find that the chart looks about like this for issues 
such as teen pregnancy, teenage murder, violence, drug and alcohol 
abuse involving teenagers and, of course, the divorce rate for seniors 
and all the other social pathology that we are so familiar with. I 
think there are several factors that contributed to these changes that 
we see here. I would say the first major factor is simply some of the 
things that have happened to our family structure in the United States. 
In 1960, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 5 percent. Today it is right 
at 33 percent, a 600 percent increase. So roughly one out of three 
children coming into our Nation today have basically two strikes 
against them and in most cases will not have both a father and mother 
to care for them. Some will, but most will not.
  In 1960, the great majority of children lived with both biological 
parents. Today nearly one-half grow up without both biological parents. 
Only 7 percent of today's families are traditional families as we would 
normally define it, with usually a father working full-time, a mother 
at home full-time or vice versa, but at least one parent being at home 
and one parent being the primary provider. This is according to the 
Fatherhood Initiative statistics.
  So actually in many cases, and as a matter of fact in some cases, in 
most cases with our children, nobody is home after 3 p.m., and between 
3 and 6 p.m. we find the greatest source of problems, of criminal 
activity and so on with our children, because no one is home. Parents 
today spend 40 percent less time with their children than they did a 
generation ago. The divorce rate, of course, has increased 300 percent 
since 1960 and 24 million children today live without their biological 
father. Fatherless children are more likely to be abused, have mental 
and emotional problems, abuse drugs and alcohol, commit suicide, commit 
a crime and be promiscuous.
  I think this is graphically driven home when we realize what a 
greeting card company did a few years ago when they approached the 
prisoners in one of our Federal prisons. It was Mother's Day. They 
said, we'll give you prisoners a Mother's Day card free if you'll just 
simply send your mother a card and they had almost 100 percent 
participation. And so they thought that this was somewhat gratifying. 
They thought, well, when Father's Day comes around, we will do the same 
thing. They made the same offer with Father's Day cards and as you may 
suppose, maybe you would not suppose, there were no takers. That shows 
you the devastation, particularly in some of our disaffected 
population, that fatherlessness has caused and I think really is at the 
root of most of the social pathology that we see in front of us.
  The foundation of our culture, the family, is certainly under assault 
and we have seen great changes over the last 30 to 40 years. Another 
major issue that has contributed to some of the problems that our young 
people are dealing with today is that the environment has changed. The 
environment that they live and move and have their

[[Page 25286]]

being in is not the same as it was back in the 1940s and the 1950s and 
even the early part of the 1960s. In 1960, drug abuse was almost 
unheard of. I know in the area of the country that I lived in, I had 
heard the word marijuana, I had never seen any instances of it, had 
never heard of cocaine, methamphet-
amines, ecstacy and so on; and of course today those drugs are of 
somewhat epidemic proportion. Alcohol abuse involving underage drinking 
has exploded.
  I would like to take a little time right now, Mr. Speaker, to develop 
this particular theme because so often we feel in the United States 
that the drug problem has to do with hard drugs, but by far the biggest 
drug problem that we are facing today with our young people is that of 
alcohol. A recent National Academy of Science study that was released, 
I believe 2 weeks ago, showed that alcohol kills 6.5 times more 
children than all other drugs combined. More than cocaine, 
methamphetamine, ecstasy and all of those drugs put together, alcohol 
kills 6.5 times more.
  Underage drinking costs the U.S. $53 billion annually, 2\1/2\ times 
what it is going to cost us to rebuild Iraq. There are more than 3 
million teenage alcoholics estimated in our country today. This is by 
far the biggest drug problem. The average age of first drink in our 
country is currently 12.8 years of age, less than 13 years of age; and 
the discouraging thing is that when young people drink, on the average 
they will consume almost twice as much alcohol per occurrence as an 
adult will. So young people on average tend to drink to get drunk and 
they often do. Twenty percent of our eighth graders drink regularly. 
Children who drink before age 15 are four times more likely to become 
alcoholics because of psychological and physiological immaturity. 
Alcohol impacts them much differently when they are 12 and 13 and 14 
and 15 years old than it impacts them when they are 24, 25, or 26. And 
so there is a great increase in addiction.
  The thing that I would really like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is 
this, that young people for the most part do not start their 
experimentation with illegal drugs by using marijuana, they do not 
start with cocaine, they do not start with methamphetamine. They start 
with alcohol. Therefore, if you really want to stop the abuse of hard 
drugs, the important thing to do is start with stopping the abuse of 
alcohol with underage drinkers.
  Yet we have really pretty much ignored this whole problem because we 
spend more than 25 times as much money on curbing illegal hard drugs as 
we do on underage drinking. We spend a minimal amount discouraging 
young people from drinking as underaged young people. We spend hundreds 
of millions to fight drug production in Afghanistan and Colombia and 
around the world and a fraction of that money spent on curbing underage 
drinking would be more cost effective. It would dry up the demand. I 
think some type of a national advertising program, a national education 
program with a fairly large infusion of dollars at the Federal level is 
warranted. It would probably help us cure and clear up the drug problem 
more than anything else that we could do in this country.
  Another issue that is certainly affecting our young people as they 
try to weave their way through the environment that they are placed in 
is the violence factor. As many people know, the United States is 
currently the most violent Nation in the world for young people ages 14 
through 23, 24. The second-place country is not even close to us. We 
lead the world in homicide rates and suicide rates for young people.
  Pornography has exploded. We have over 1 million porn sites on the 
Internet. Not 1,000. Not 100,000. We have 1 million porn sites 
currently on the Internet. That is unthinkable. I think when the 
Internet first began many years ago, no one would have assumed that 
this was even possible or probable. And here it is and so nine out of 
10 children ages 9 through 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet. 
Again, that is nine out of 10 children who are ages 9 through 16 have 
viewed pornography. Much of that is hard core pornography, which really 
sears an impression into your mind that sometimes you really cannot get 
out of it and most of that viewing has been unintentional. It has been 
by accident.
  We have corporations such as AT&T that have been involved in hard 
core pornography. At one time AT&T I think was the gold standard as far 
as how a large corporation should be run. Yet we find some of our most 
reputable companies involved in this industry which yields profits of 
10 to $15 billion a year. And so the profit motive certainly supersedes 
any national interest that they might perceive. Such words as Barbie, 
Disney, ESPN, at one time my name, would pull up a porn site. And so a 
child who innocently wants to do research or look at some information 
regarding their hobby will oftimes pull up a porn site, and we do not 
seem to be able to do anything about it.
  Many of us are dismayed by the way the FCC is regulating obscenity on 
the Nation's airwaves. They are the primary arbiter. They are the ones 
who are supposed to be the watchdog in this area. According to the 
Parents Television Council as of July 23, 2003, the FCC had not fined a 
single broadcast station in the United States for airing indecent 
material. Also they had not suspended a single license in the United 
States for airing indecent material. Not in the entire history of the 
FCC have they done anything like this, despite thousands of complaints. 
This is something, Mr. Speaker, that absolutely needs to change. Many 
of us in this body are attempting to cause the FCC to begin to take 
their responsibility seriously.
  The Department of Justice has been focusing on eliminating child 
pornography but has done relatively little to enforce hard core 
Internet obscenity laws. Of course the Department of Justice has had 
their hands full, particularly since 9/11. We realize that they have a 
very heavy caseload. But we have really petitioned the Department of 
Justice to get more active. In the preceding 8 years prior to 2000, 
practically nothing was done to enforce obscenity laws in the 
Department of Justice, and we feel that we have not seen a whole lot of 
action in the last couple of years as well.
  Another issue that has been a concern is that of the video game 
industry, eight- to 18-year-old children average spending 40 minutes 
per day playing video games. Again, 40 minutes a day on the average, 
ages 8 through 18. And video games, as most people know, have become 
increasingly violent. A recent video game that was displayed to Members 
of Congress showed stalking and killing activities that are used on 
training films in the military to teach people how to kill people. In 
this particular video game, if you were a good shot and you hit 
somebody in a vital spot, such as the head, blood spurted and 
everything happened; the reward was several frames of pornographic 
material.
  This is, as far as I am concerned, off the charts. I do not think the 
average adult can even conceive of some of the things that our children 
are seeing in terms of video games. The average player of video games 
is 12 years of age. The Kentucky school shooter who was very effective 
and killed several of his classmates had never fired a gun prior to the 
day that he took a gun to school, but he had been very proficient in 
playing video games, and he had done a lot of firing and shooting in 
video games which translated apparently quite well into his activities 
on the school ground that day.
  Of course much music, some television, many movies are graphic. The 
current content would have been impossible to present for public 
consumption 30 years ago or even 20 years ago. This is particularly 
disturbing to me because I have grandchildren ages 4 through 11. I am 
very concerned about the environment that they are moving into and the 
things that they are either advertently or inadvertently exposed to 
because it certainly has an impact on the way they see the world.

                              {time}  2300

  In addition to some of these issues, I would have to say that our 
value system has shifted considerably. Stephen Covey wrote the book 
``Seven Habits of

[[Page 25287]]

Highly Effective People'' several years ago, and the thing that he 
noted was this: he said that in the first 150 years of our country's 
history, success was primarily defined in terms of character traits. A 
successful person was honest, a successful person was loyal, a 
successful person was hard working, kind, et cetera, generous. And then 
he said something happened about 50, 60 years ago as he began to survey 
the literature of our Nation as it had to do with the issue of success, 
he noticed that success began to be defined more and more in terms of 
material possessions. A successful person was no longer one who had 
good character; a successful person was one who had money; a successful 
person was one who had power; a successful person was one who had 
celebrity. And so today we find that many people who are labeled 
successful are really not people of character. They are people who have 
material wealth, celebrity, publicity, and so on. So certainly our 
value system has switched a great deal. And we have seen this affect 
the business world, WorldCom, Enron. We have seen it in the press. We 
have seen it in athletics, in the church, and in politics; and so it is 
quite concerning as to what effect this has on our culture at the 
present time.
  The predominant world view that I noticed today, Mr. Speaker, is 
something called post-modernism, and what this states, the view of the 
world being post-modernism, is that there are no moral absolutes. So 
murder is not absolutely wrong. It depends on the circumstance. There 
may be cases when this is justified. Adultery is not absolutely wrong. 
There may be circumstances in which it is okay. Everything is relative. 
It may be okay to dishonor one's father and one's mother. It may be 
okay to steal or to lie or to do all of the things that have been taboo 
in societies throughout history.
  So we have a system of relativism that leaves our young people with 
nothing firm to hold on to at the present time; and particularly on the 
college campus we will find that post-modernism is currently almost 100 
percent holding sway in terms of the minds of our young people.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in view of the family breakdown, the decline in our 
culture and shifting values, it is an extremely difficult time for our 
children. We are asking them to weave their way through a minefield 
littered with alcohol and drug abuse, harmful video games, music, TV, 
movies, promiscuity games, violent behavior, and broken homes; and we 
are asking them to do this with little or no parental guidance in an 
ever-shifting value system.
  So it is a very difficult time, and I think we need to pay very close 
attention to these changes in our family, to these changes in our 
environment. And as de Toqueville said, he made an observation that I 
thought was rather astute a couple hundred years ago. He said: 
``America is great because America is good,'' and what he was doing was 
he was referring to the large number of churches, civic clubs, youth 
groups, and individuals who reach out and help others. This was 
somewhat unique to the United States at that time that we would help 
those who were less able to help themselves, and we had all of the 
different groups who were reaching out, and he had not noticed that in 
Europe. He said this is really the key to America's greatness. So he 
was referring to the inherent decency of the American people. He was 
referring to the strong moral and spiritual underpinning of the Nation. 
He was referring to the basic American ethic: ``Do unto to others as 
you would have them do unto you.'' So I think the important thing to 
remember, that these observations were made 200 years ago, and I 
suppose the corollary to his observation would be this: if America is 
no longer good, then America may no longer be great.
  I am not one who believes that we are not a great country, and I 
believe there is a tremendous reservoir of innate goodness in our 
country today. But by the same token, I think it is important to point 
out that some of the standards and some of the values that have made us 
great have slipped considerably.
  So one may say, what can be done? This has been a discouraging 
picture that I have painted, and sometimes I even hesitate to do this, 
but I think it is something that we need to face, we need to talk about 
on this floor. So some of the things that can be done in this body and 
throughout our culture are as follows: number one, we can do some 
things to provide mentoring for some of our young children, and 
mentoring is simply providing an adult who cares about the lives of 
young persons. So many of our young kids today do not have anyone who 
cares for them unconditionally and to have someone who is not a father, 
not a mother, not a preacher, not a teacher, no one who has an ax to 
grind, is paid to do so, to have a person who is a mentor, who is an 
adult who cares enough about someone, to show up and say I care about 
you unconditionally, and whatever happens, I am here for you.
  It is very powerful in the life of a young person. A mentor is one 
who affirms, who says I believe in you, I know you can do it. I think 
that this is something that you are capable of. I see great promise in 
you. And I saw that in athletics, that if they affirmed a young person, 
they ofttimes became that which they did not even know they could be; 
and on other hand if they did not affirm them, if they beat them down, 
if they are negative, which so many of our kids experience all the 
time, it would not be long before that player played down to that 
level, and before long he would quit.
  And of course a mentor also provides a vision. So many of our young 
people simply have no vision of what they could be, that they could go 
on to college, that they could do something in electronics, that they 
have musical ability. So a mentor is one who guides them in those 
directions. Mentoring reduces dropout rates, drug and alcohol abuse, 
teenage pregnancy, violence. And the President has proposed $150 
million annually over the next 3 years for mentoring initiatives. 
Actually, the funding will be about half of that, but it is still much 
better than we had in the past.
  The National Mentoring Partnership says that roughly 18 million 
children in the United States today are badly in need of a mentor, and 
yet at the present time we have roughly 2 million who are being 
mentors. Roughly one out of every 10 has a mentor. So I think one thing 
that could greatly change the shape of our Nation and our future would 
be to provide a much more systematic mentoring program, and I think the 
President is behind that.
  I think some legislation can help. The Internet Gambling Bill, H.R. 
2143, is something that I think could be very beneficial. We have a 
great many young people, particularly college students, who are 
inundated with credit cards. And anymore all one has to do to build a 
huge gambling debt is to have a credit card and a computer. So we would 
like to shut this practice down because some kids run up a 10, 15, 
$20,000 gambling debt in a matter of days; and of course their future 
and their credit rating is ruined. So we feel that this would be an 
important bill. H.R. 669, Protect Children from Video Game Sex and 
Violence Act of 2003, sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca), of which I am a cosponsor, prevents marketing extremely graphic 
violent video games to children. We think this would be a step in the 
right direction; but, again, we would worry about the courts declaring 
it unconstitutional. So I think we need a fundamental shift in court 
decisions regarding the first amendment.
  I am not a constitutional expert and do not pretend to be so, but I 
would like to point out some court cases that have certainly shaped the 
course of our Nation's history and its future. In 1996 Congress passed 
the Communications Decency Act that made it illegal to send indecent 
material to children via the Internet; but in June of 1997, the Supreme 
Court overturned portions of the law and, get this, said in the 
opinion: ``Indecent material is protected by first amendment.'' So this 
was one of the first times, I believe, that the Supreme Court said that 
indecent material is okay. The first amendment gives one the ability to 
do that, and we are not going to stand in the way of people

[[Page 25288]]

sending indecent material to children over the Internet.

                              {time}  2310

  That was a landmark case.
  In 1996 also, the Child Pornography Prevention Act outlawed child 
pornography, including visual depictions that appeared to be of a 
minor. So the issue at hand was this: You cannot have an actual minor 
involved in the production of child pornography, but if you use 
computer-generated images, which you can not tell whether they are real 
or not real, then that type of child pornography is apparently okay, 
according to this particular Supreme Court decision.
  In October 1998 the Children On-Line Protection Act was signed into 
law to prohibit the communication of harmful material to children on 
publicly accessible web sites. The Supreme Court's refusal to rule on 
the 1988 law prevented the law from being enacted, so we were not able 
to protect children who were involved in receiving harmful material on 
publicly accessible web sites.
  The 106th Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act to 
require 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.
  What we have here is free speech is protected for pornographers and, 
in some case pedophiles, while women and children are attacked. Roughly 
80 to 90 percent of pedophiles and rapists report using pornography, 
oft times before they commit an event.
  So, some people say, well, what is the big deal? Pornography is 
harmless. It does not really have any victim. Yet, if you think about 
it, we spend billions of dollars in this country on commercials, and if 
those commercials did not change behavior, if what you see and what you 
hear and what you read does not change your behavior, then we are 
spending billions of dollars unnecessarily. So, obviously, the 
pornography industry does have a tremendous impact on behavior and the 
environments that our young people exist in.
  I would also point out that there have been some issues that have to 
do with prayer that are somewhat concerning in our schools. In 1962 the 
Supreme Court ruled the following prayer unconstitutional. This was the 
landmark decision. This was the particular prayer: ``Almighty God, we 
acknowledge our dependence on thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, 
our teachers and our country.'' It seemed relatively innocuous and 
relatively simple, but that prayer was ruled unconstitutional because 
of separation of church and state.
  It would appear that many court rulings regarding separation of 
church and state have ranged far afield from the intent of our framers 
of the Constitution. The First Amendment states, ``Congress shall make 
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.''
  Of course, most everyone realizes where that came from, the 
Constitution, was that this country was founded by people who were 
attempting to escape from a religious state, the Church of England, so 
they did not want a government-sponsored religion which took over the 
country.
  But I think that in the interpretations that we have seen in the 
courts, we have ranged far afield from what the Constitution actually 
intended. The framers of the Constitution were assumed to be hostile to 
expressions of faith in the recent interpretations of the court that we 
have seen.
  Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the framers of the Constitution, 
said this: ``We have been assured, sir,'' and this is his quote, ``In 
the sacred writings, that except the Lord build a 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 future ages. I 
therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the 
assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberation be held in 
this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.''
  What he was talking about was in this body, on this floor, he was 
saying we should have a prayer at the start of business every day. This 
is one of the framers of the Constitution. So at this point, both the 
House and the Senate begin their business daily with a prayer, and yet 
we have moved so far as a Nation away from what Franklin originally 
intended.
  George Washington said this: ``The propitious smiles of heaven can 
never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of 
order and right which heaven itself has ordained.''
  In assessing the writings of some of the Founding Fathers, David 
Barton, an historian, said 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 from 
more than three centuries of its heritage. America is now learning 
exponentially what both Washington and Franklin knew to be true. We are 
suffering in the very areas they predicted.''
  I think it is important that the Founding Fathers really did not 
intend for the pendulum to swing as far as it has. I think that they 
obviously acknowledged the importance of issues of faith, and this was 
the foundation upon which the Nation was built.
  There are some other decisions that I think are worth looking at. In 
1992 a Supreme Court decision declared an invocation and benediction at 
a graduation ceremony constitutional, so a preacher, a rabbi, a Muslim 
cleric, cannot at a graduation exercise lead any type of prayer. That 
was decided in 1992.
  The court also has held more recently a minute of silence in school 
is unconstitutional, so at the beginning of the classroom day it is not 
constitutional for a minute of silence to be held in which a child may 
choose to pray in his own way. He may look out the window, he may think 
about his history lesson, but it is just a minute of silence. There is 
no formal, organized prayer, no one is proselytizing, and yet that has 
become unconstitutional.
  Then this, one of the strangest rulings that I heard of, was the 
court ruled that a student-led prayer at a football game was 
unconstitutional. This is not inside the school building, it is not a 
school administrator, it is not a teacher; this was a prayer that was 
chosen to be selected by the students, and a student was going to lead 
the prayer. Yet this was unconstitutional because the football players 
might have to listen to it and might be offended, I guess.
  Of course, most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck 
down the term ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance, and that 
will now be heard by the Supreme Court, probably within the next few 
months, and it appears that those are there is a very strong 
probability that this may be a four-to-four deadlock, which means that 
the Ninth Circuit Court will be upheld and that will become the law of 
the land, at least for that part of the country.
  Certainly I am not advocating here that teachers or administrators be 
allowed to proselytize in the schools. I do not think that would be 
appropriate. I do not think that is intended. But it does seem that we 
have come a long, long ways from where the framers of the Constitution 
originally intended us to go.
  The Constitution is increasingly being interpreted as a ``living 
document.'' That sounds really good, does it not, because it is kind of 
progressive. It sounds like we are forward-thinking and the 
Constitution is not a dead piece of legislation, but it is currently

[[Page 25289]]

alive and it is being changed and it is moving ahead.
  Yet the important thing to realize is that the Constitution is often 
not interpreted as it was written, but rather as justices believe that 
it should be. Look at the legal decisions increasingly coming down, 
based not upon what the law states, but based upon the personal 
ideology of the jurists.
  The Constitution is not based upon absolute principles, but rather 
the shifting sands of relativism. This philosophical bent of the 
Supreme Court justices and District Court justices determines the 
course of the Nation.
  Over the last 20 or 30 years we have seen the Nation slowly but 
surely driven in certain directions that many people would believe is 
not what the framers of the Constitution intended. That, Mr. Speaker, 
is why the activities in the other body regarding the makeup of the 
courts and the court appointees is becoming such an important issue, 
because, within the next 1 or 2 or 3 years, the shape of the Supreme 
Court certainly will be determined, and, with it, the direction that 
our Nation proceeds over the next 15, 20, 30 years I think will largely 
be decided.
  The willingness of Congress to focus upon the pernicious influences 
impacting our children, the willingness of the American people to 
demand that those profiteering at the expense of our culture and our 
young people be reined in, will largely shape the future of our Nation.

                              {time}  2320

  Terrorism is an ever-present threat. The economy is of concern. 
However, terrorism and economic distress will not prevail as long as 
our national character is sound. I would like to say that one more 
time. There is certainly no intent on my part to minimize the critical 
nature of terrorism, the crisis in the Middle East, the situation in 
Iraq, the difficulties with the economy, health care, Medicare, all of 
those types of things. Those are critical issues and they occupy almost 
100 percent of this body's attention. But the reason I am here tonight 
is to try to point out the fact that we will handle all of those 
problems. None of those problems will overcome the United States if our 
character is sound, if our young people are nurtured in the right 
direction.
  And, therefore, something that I think is very pernicious is slipping 
under the radar screen and something that this Congress, this body, and 
the American people need to address on a consistent manner. So this 
struggle may present the most critical crisis facing the United States 
today.
  As Congress addresses important issues such as national defense, 
economy, health care, and so on, it is critical that we not lose sight 
of the fact that our Nation's survival is directly linked to the 
character of our people.
  I would conclude by saying this our future rests with our young 
people and with the soundness of their character, their willingness to 
sacrifice, and their spiritual grounding. And I hope that we will give 
adequate attention to these issues some of which can be handled through 
legislation, some through expenditures of money, for instance, in the 
trying to prevent underage drinking, some in our attention to who goes 
on to the courts and who does not, but above all this really rests with 
the American people and with their willingness to persevere.
  And I would like to echo what de Tocqueville said, ``America is great 
because America is good.'' And I think we need to maintain our 
vigilance that America continues to be good.

                          ____________________