Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Are you stating that there is no rule saying that the majority has to supply 48 hours' notice?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the ruling from the Chair, in respect to my objection, was based on the rules that were adopted by the House, the civility section, where we were supposed to be provided 48 hours of notice of any legislation brought to the floor.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, this suspension rule was just amended or written and changed in the last 45 minutes. It is my understanding from the votes that we took on the first day of the House that the rules were amended. A civility section was added to the rules that said that we would be provided 48 hours' notice. It is my thought that this last-minute change violates the rules that were adopted in the House our first day in session for the 110th Congress, and I object to the bill's going forward.

Mr. TERRY. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a point of order.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today that we are going to take up a bill to deny a Member who has been convicted of bribery their pension. Over a year ago, I introduced the first bill to deny a Member a pension when they have been convicted of a felony such as bribery. Two of my other Republican colleagues stood with me at that press conference and also submitted their own bills. It was actually brought up for a vote last May, and amazingly the Democratic leadership in total voted against denying pensions to Members of the House of Representatives convicted of bribery, but yet we stand here today with a new Member introducing a bill that falls substantially short. And, by the way, I am happy that this bill is coming to the floor. I really believe it has been the unified pressure of Mark Steven Kirk, John Shadegg, and myself for the last year, including the first day of the session this year, in coming to the House floor and saying we need this bill. That is the reason that it is here today, even though we are being denied our participation in that process.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of this bill. I am committed to reducing drug prices for seniors, but this bill does not do it. I have worked as hard as anyone in this Chamber to help seniors enroll in prescription part D. It has been in place for a little over a year now. I think it is time that we kind of look at how effective it is in ways that we can ensure that we are getting the lowest prices for our seniors. Now, let us look at how we do this. I want to stress one difference. We have been tagged as somehow part of a big conspiracy because of barring government from price setting. By the way, if you look at this week and its agenda, it is the week of wage and price controls by big government. That is what this is about. It is a philosophical battle of whether you trust the private sector to use their power of bulk purchases to receive the lowest prices, or you put government at the table to quote-unquote, negotiate. Every time I say that in quotations, I really mean that in a satirical way because government doesn't really negotiate; they price set. That is the heavy hand of big government at work today. Frankly, even using that heavy hand of government, the CBO reports that any negotiation, in quotations, by big government for lower drug prices would be negligible, because it would at least, in its best day, equate what the market has already done. There has been no ban on negotiations; it has just simply been who does it, private sector or government? I am a private sector guy. I trust the private sector. Part of the problem here is that the government lacks the leverage in any type of negotiations. That is why they can only use the heavy hand as the leverage in negotiations, for example, ultimately price setting. That is why I voted to ban the government from setting prices, and I will not start down that slippery slope today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4. I am committed to reducing drug prices for seniors, but this bill does not do it. I have worked as hard as anyone on this floor on behalf of seniors in the implementation of Part D. Now that we have had the program in place for over 1 year, opportunity to evaluate the effect of the program on seniors' drug prices. Much to the dismay of the members of the majority who have done nothing to assist seniors with this program, the program is working well. Costs are down and seniors are satisfied. Requiring the government to negotiate drug prices is not going to save the program any money, according to both CBO and CMS actuaries. CBO states that, ``H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on federal spending.'' And the claims by the majority that savings would close the so-called donut hole are simply untrue. The size of the donut hole is estimated at almost $500 billion. Even if this provision created major savings, it wouldn't come close to closing the donut hole. Dr. Mark McClellan, the former CMS Administrator, has said that competition among private companies and their negotiations with drug companies have lowered the estimated cost of the program over the next 10 years by nearly 20 percent and may reduce it by another 10 percent next year. The average premium, originally estimated to be $37 per month, has fallen to an average of $22 per month. I am encouraged that competition in the private sector has done what the free market does best--lower costs. The key here is leverage. Negotiation means nothing if you don't have something to leverage. Part D private plans already have natural leverage built in. As CBO has stated, the private plans have a huge financial stake and formulary limitations which give them the ability to negotiate drug prices. The requirement for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into pricing negotiations as contained in H.R. 4 simply cannot work. The bill prohibits a single national formulary from being established. If the government is not allowed to limit or restrict the number of drugs covered, it will have absolutely no leverage to negotiate with drug manufacturers. Such a mandate, I believe, would be extremely unattractive to our Nation's seniors. They would not have the flexibility to choose a plan that best meets their drug needs, as is the case right now. I do not support H.R. 4 because I oppose turning a program over to the government that is working efficiently and effectively in the private sector. Congress created the Part D program to allow market forces to drive costs down and that is exactly what is happening. It would be disastrous to our seniors to make such a draconian change when the cost savings have been so great. When the private sector can perform more efficiently and achieve better results than the Federal Government, the private sector should do so. Adoption of this bill will put us on the way to socialized healthcare, a result I don't believe any American really wants. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, legislation to expand taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research and give a ``stamp of approval'' from the Federal government for scientists to destroy human embryos to harvest stem cells for medical experiments. The pain and suffering of citizens afflicted with debilitating diseases concerns me greatly. I served for 7 years on the board of directors for the Great Plains Region of the American Diabetes Association because I am committed to finding a cure for people afflicted with this disease. I strongly support scientific research to find cures and effective treatments to relieve human suffering. I voted to double the Federal investment in biomedical research from $13.6 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $27.1 billion in fiscal year 2003. The National Institutes of Health received $28.5 billion from Congress last year to do research on new cures for diseases. Embryonic stem cell research is not the ``silver bullet'' for every disease. The potential benefits of this research have been blown out of proportion by eager scientists and some in the news media. The fact is that 25 years of human embryonic stem cell research have not produced even one treatment for suffering Americans. Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, is producing real and tangible results with no ethical concerns. In fact, adult stem cells have produced treatments for 72 serious diseases and conditions in humans, and shown strong potential for permanent reversal of severe diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's. Research has consistently shown that human embryonic stem cells grow tumors once implanted in an animal, became uncontrollable, or form various and wrong types of tissues. Some studies have shown moderate improvement in rats with spinal cord injuries, but some of those rats were not kept alive long enough to see if tumors formed. Many scientists argue this is a new medical field and limitations such as cancerous tendencies can be overcome through additional Federal funding and more time in the lab. These arguments callously gloss over the fact that embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human embryos--and 48 percent of Americans surveyed last year opposed this type of research after being informed of that fact. We have a responsibility as public officials to direct limited Federal dollars toward the most promising and ethical research possible. The strongest potential for cures at this time is not in embryonic stem cells, but in ethical research using adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood stem cells, and most recently, amniotic fluid stem cells, all of which uphold and support human life. These ethical approaches show promise that rivals the potential of embryonic stem cells without forcing many American taxpayers to fund research that threatens the dignity of human life. Amid all the scientific jargon in today's debate, let us not forget the fact that each one of us started life as a human embryo. There is no way around that basic fact, no matter how many scientific terms are used to conceal or confuse it. Embryos are the tiniest of human lives, but they are nevertheless human lives, and we must defend the defenseless. If embryos are not fundamentally human lives, how can you explain the fact that frozen embryos from in vitro fertility clinics grow into children once they are implanted in a woman's womb? Does an embryo somehow become less of a human being if we choose to donate it to a scientist to be experimented upon and ultimately destroyed? Those same human embryonic stem cells lying in a cold Petri dish will undeniably grow into a human child if given a chance at life. We must not allow scientific terminology to desensitize us to the miracle and sanctity of human life. Here are some published examples of the differences between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research: Numerous attempts over the last 5 years to use human embryonic stem cells to cure diabetes repeatedly produced tumors or failed to generate insulin to reverse the disease. In the most successful experiment, human embryonic stem cells produced only one-fiftieth the amount of insulin needed to sustain life, and the mice died. For Parkinson's disease, researchers found that human embryonic stem cells grew uncontrollably in 100 percent of rats with the condition. All the animals showed indications of early tumor formation. These findings were duplicated by scientists in Sweden and Japan. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have treated multiple types of cancers, including breast cancer and Leukemia, as well as autoimmune diseases, heart defects, heart disease, osteoporosis and spinal cord injuries, and demonstrated excellent potential to treat diabetes and to reverse Parkinson's. In 2003, researchers used adult stem cells to help regenerate pancreatic islet cells that produce insulin, permanently reversing diabetes in mice. The lead researcher stated that: ``Patients with fully established diabetes possibly could have their diabetes reversed.'' The FDA has approved a human clinical trial for diabetes based on this successful research. In 2005, a mother donated live stem cells for her diabetic daughter, alleviating the diabetic symptoms. Human umbilical cord blood stem cells can also generate insulin to reverse diabetes. Just last year, scientists used adult umbilical cord stem cells to treat rats with Parkinson's, and found significant recovery in motion and behavior. In 2002, a Parkinson's patient testified that his symptoms were 80 percent reversed after being treated with his own adult neural stem cells. British researchers in 2003 injected a natural protein into the brains of five Parkinson's patients and found that it stimulated existing adult neural stem cell growth, yielding a 61 percent improvement in motor function. University of Kentucky researchers treated 10 Parkinson's patients with similar results. And just this week, researchers at Harvard University and Wake Forest University reported a breakthrough discovery that stem cells found in amniotic fluid show incredible promise for cures without concerns for tumor growth or immune system rejection. Amniotic stem cells can be safely and easily extracted from pregnant women, and are ``pluripotent'' like human embryonic stem cells, meaning they have the ability to transform into each of the three major types of tissue found in the body. The researchers stated: ``We conclude that amniotic fluid stem cells are pluripotent stem cells capable of giving rise to multiple lineages including representatives of all three embryonic germ layers.'' Using amniotic stem cells, the research team created nerve cells, liver cells, endothelial cells that line blood vessels, and cells involved in the creation of bone, muscle and fat. In fact, the nerve cells successfully generated a neurotransmitter crucial to forming dopamine, which is lacking in Parkinson's patients. In testing on mice, amniotic stem cells were shown to re-grow and repair damaged areas of the brain. The incredible promise of such ethical stem cell research is worthy of taxpayer funding. It holds real promise and real hope for citizens needing cures and tangible relief from pain and disease. This debate today is not about whether we should fund stem cell research with tax dollars. The National Institutes of Health spends about $600 million every year on stem cell research, and almost $40 million of those funds are unfortunately being spent on research involving human embryonic stem cells. The real debate today is about whether scientists will be able to create more embryonic stem cell lines by destroying more embryos. The next thing these scientists will be asking for is the ability to clone embryos because they cannot get enough stem cells from frozen human embryos at in vitro fertility clinics. This is no ``slippery slope,'' it is the ethical equivalent of jumping off a cliff. As public officeholders sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, we will have failed in our duty if we fail today to protect the right to life of the youngest homo sapiens--human embryos. We cannot fail in defending the defenseless, and we must keep faith with American taxpayers by funding the most ethical research to relief the suffering of ailing Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against this unethical bill that would exploit human life while preying on the emotions of suffering American citizens.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of lifting people out of poverty by giving them the means to succeed. I rise today to speak against the Democrat's raise in the minimum wage. No American wants to see their fellow person live in poverty. There are ways to continue to help Americans have all the means necessary to not only survive, but to thrive. However, the Democrat's bill to raise the minimum wage is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a broken little toe. While their intentions may be good, and I believe they are, their philosophical approach is economically and socially flawed. In reality, this plan will create an economic hardship for the employers who provide millions of Americans the opportunity to participate in our economy. Some of my colleagues would have you believe that the right thing to do is mandate unto all businesses, small, family-owned, and corporate alike, that the business cannot determine the wage worth of an employee. They would have you believe it is the job of the government to do so. I believe in a market system without an intrusive, dictating government that will likely minimize potential employment opportunities for lower skilled workers. I and many of my fellow free-market thinking colleagues believe that the correct action to take to help these individuals is two-fold. First, on the macro-level, we must have a strong, growing economy from which highpaying jobs are available and competition for employees. Facts show that lowering taxes is an economic motivator. In the past 5 years, Congress has passed and or extended the following tax cuts: marriage penalty relief, accelerated the increase in the child credit, accelerated the expansion of the 15 percent rate bracket for married couples, reduction in individual income tax rates, reduction of other regular tax rates, increased the alternative minimum tax exemption, reduce individual capital gains rates, and accelerated depreciation. These tax cuts have helped grow our economy here in the U.S. to the point where we are now in a time of economic prosperity with Americans enjoying the benefits. Since August 2003, when the 2001 tax extensions were passed, the American economy has added over 7 million new jobs-- this is more than all other major industrialized nations combined--and posted job gains for 39 straight months. We have also attained an impressive 4.5 percent unemployment rate. This economy is most conducive to producing higher paying jobs. Secondly, on the micro-level, these individuals who are making minimum wage most importantly need advancement in skills and education. I have had many conversations with a gentleman named Fernando ``Butch'' Lecuona III. Butch is the commissioner of Labor for the Nebraska Department of Labor and is the head of the Department of Labor in Nebraska. Butch also adheres to the philosophy and will be the first one to say that education is the key to lifting people from poverty. In December of 2006, we in the House passed a tax credit for businesses who hired individuals in the Welfare to Work program, which provided a tax credit to employers when they hire individuals who have received public assistance for 18 months or who have exhausted their benefits. In addition to the Welfare to Work program I also supported the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, when employers hire individuals from eight ``target'' groups--such as families receiving public assistance, high-risk youths, ex-felons, qualified veterans, and food stamp recipients under the age of 35. This is an example of the proper roll of government to help individuals succeed. While doing my research for this vote, I attempted to find the number of people that are the bread-winners for their families working at or below minimum wage. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Nebraska has roughly 1 million people in our workforce pool. Nearly 60 percent of our workers work for an hourly wage. In the United States, 1.5 percent of hourly workers aged 25 and above make at or below minimum wage; 1.5 percent of our hourly workers in Nebraska equals about 8,000 people. Of the total 17,000 minimum wage workers in Nebraska, more than half of those are aged 16-24. These are not typically the breadwinners of the family. The best tool to battle poverty is a free market with an educated workforce. We have the tools in this Nation to continue to provide Americans with the opportunities for which we are known. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to help an individual better themselves, their family, or their community. This is why I will not be supporting the minimum wage increase and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late President Gerald R. Ford, who was born in my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska. President Ford will forever be remembered for his great service to the people of the United States of America. He served the people at a complicated and divisive time in our history with honor and distinction. By helping our Nation heal from the political turmoil of Watergate, he helped move us forward. President Ford was a man of selfless actions based in modest, Midwestern values. As a public servant, I am proud of his efforts; as a Nebraskan, I am proud of our President. President Ford was a man who gave up a National Football League career in order to study law and ultimately serve the people in the highest office of public service. His love for our Nation and our American freedoms will live on through our work in Congress and his immortal words, spoken during his 1977 State of the Union Address when he said ``The Constitution is the bedrock of all our freedoms. Guard and cherish it, keep honor and order in your own house, and the republic will endure.'' He was a scholar, an athlete, an honorable President, and an even more honorable American. Our nation will truly miss his leadership, honestly and integrity.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to help schools educating the children of U.S. service members and schools serving Native American children on federal lands. My legislation will improve the distribution of school construction grants under the Impact Aid program. Impact Aid compensates schools affected by a federal presence such as military installations or Native American reservations. Because federal lands are exempt from local property taxes, school districts located on or near federal lands lose a major source of revenue without the federal Impact Aid program. Currently, school construction grants under Impact Aid allow unequal funding between military school districts and Native American school districts. For example, although 36 percent of the one million federal students are from military impacted schools, the majority of school construction dollars are spent on the 12 percent of Native American students. In 2005 and 2004, $27 million in Impact Aid competitive construction grants were awarded. In 2005, only 1 of 8 competitive grants was awarded to a military impacted school district. In 2004, only three of 15 recipients were military school districts, and only one of 17 recipients in 2003 was a military school. In contrast, the formula grants under the Impact Aid School Construction program are equally distributed between military and Native American schools. Considering that Impact Aid has historically been underfunded in meeting the needs of local school districts serving military and Native American families, this legislation is critical to ensure the most equitable use of available dollars. Instead of sending 60% of funding toward 12 percent of federal students, the legislation I am introducing today would ensure 80% of school construction funding will be equally distributed between military and Native American schools. This approach will help ensure a high-quality education for the children of our military members selflessly serving our Nation. Priority would also be given to Native American districts in qualifying for emergency construction grants in recognition of the poor condition of too many Native American schools. This legislation will also help schools affected by Global Rebasing at the Department of Defense (DoD). Over the next four years, DoD estimates that 38,000 military children will be returning to U.S. schools from closing overseas military bases. Under this legislation, schools that experience a 10% increase in the number of military students would be allowed to apply for emergency Impact Aid construction grants. I am confident this excellent legislation will improve the Impact Aid program to better serve American families. I am proud that both Native American school districts and military-impacted school districts support the common-sense approach of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the reauthorization of Impact Aid later this year, and urge every Member of Congress to review and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a looming judicial crisis in my state of Nebraska. Today, with my Nebraska colleagues Congressman Jeff Fortenberry and Congressman Adrian Smith, I am introducing legislation to create an additional federal judgeship for the United States District Court, District of Nebraska. Nebraska has three permanent judgeships and three senior judges. An additional temporary judgeship was created in 1990 and lapsed in May 2004 when a judge took senior status, despite recommendations by the Judicial Conference of the United States to convert the temporary status to a permanent position. After the lapse, the Judicial Conference has continued to recommend an additional permanent judgeship. To further burden the district, two of the court's three senior judges are in their early eighties and do not take full caseloads. The third senior judge also cannot handle a full caseload due to health reasons, and as a result, the senior judges provided the equivalent of less than one active judge in 2005. Our delegation has introduced this important legislation on the very first day of the 110th Congress because the need for immediate Congressional action has never been greater. Nebraska's federal district courts handle a heavy caseload, not unlike many federal district courts nationwide. However, the number of Nebraska federal district court judges' criminal felony filings ranks them 5th nationwide and is more than twice the national average. Furthermore, the Nebraska judges have increased their overall number of completed trials by 41 percent since 2001 and now rank 2nd nationwide on a per- judgeship basis. Weighted filings currently total 590 per judgeship, the 7th highest total in the Nation. Based on the current total of three authorized judgeships, the court's weighted filings are well above the standards of 500 per judgeship for small courts. These numbers mean nothing unless they are put into a real life context. Nebraska is a rural state and the judges must travel long distances in order to try cases. For example, judges in Omaha must travel almost 600 miles four times per year to conduct two-week jury sessions. Additionally, magistrates are sent out one month prior to the judge's arrival to conduct pretrial conferences on all cases pending trial. All this travel takes its toll on these judges and forces them at times to use the services of judges from other districts. The strain on assistance from senior judges, the high number of felony criminal cases and the heavy weighted caseload demonstrate clearly that the district of Nebraska requires four permanent judgeships. I call on all of my colleagues to recognize the pressing need for immediate Congressional action to create an additional federal judgeship in Nebraska.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Calling for 2-1-1 Act of 2007. I am proud to lend my support as an original cosponsor of this bill, which was introduced today by my colleague, Ms. Eshoo of California. I would also like to note a concern I have with the bill as introduced, which I hope will be resolved prior to a vote in the full House of Representatives. 2-1-1 is the number designated by the Federal Communications Commission to provide citizens with information and referral about important community services and volunteer opportunities. United Way and its affiliates operate more than 200 call centers in 41 states nationwide, including my home state of Nebraska. About two-thirds of American citizens currently have access to 2-1-1 referrals. The Calling for 2-1-1 Act will help achieve nationwide coverage for all citizens. More than 50 percent of the calls made to 2-1-1 call centers are placed to meet basic needs such as food, heat, clothing and shelter for citizens facing difficulty. 2-1-1 helps to keep citizens off long-term government financial aid such as welfare and food stamps by meeting immediate needs before they become crises. 2-1-1 also enhances homeland security by serving as an emergency backup to 9-1-1 during natural disasters and other crises. In my Congressional District alone, almost 40,000 Nebraskans sought information through 2-1-1 between November 2005 and October 2006. The top needs were for assistance with utilities, rent, food, housing, health and dental care, furniture and tax preparation. Thousands of Nebraskans were able to obtain assistance from federal and non-profit community service agencies because of the existence of 2-1-1. 2-1-1 was crucial during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When 9- 1-1 emergency lines were inoperational, 2-1-1 stepped up to link citizens in dire need with critical services, including emergency medical care, food and housing, and crisis recovery and relocation services nationwide. Volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross also benefit from people who call 2-1-1 seeking opportunities to give back to their communities. 2-1-1 meets critical needs and merits federal aid, provided that additional protections are put in place before this legislation is brought to a vote. It was my privilege to work last year with Ms. Eshoo and Mrs. Clinton in the Senate, as well as Mr. Pickering and Mr. Bilirakis in the House of Representatives, to address important concerns for ``socially sensitive'' referrals before bringing the Calling for 2-1-1 Act to a vote. As Members of Congress with deep convictions for the protection of human life, we drafted language to refer callers seeking pregnancy- related services to public health departments. This reasonable compromise was designed to ensure the 2-1-1 legislation does not become a vehicle for taxpayer funding of controversial referrals such as abortion. Unfortunately, this important language, which had been agreed upon by all parties, was not included in the legislation introduced today. I look forward to working with my Ms. Eshoo and my other colleagues to correct this situation. If my concerns are not addressed, I would be forced to vote against and actively fight against the legislation I have cosponsored and worked to enact into law, despite my strong support for increasing access to 2-1-1 for more American citizens. The fact that I have again cosponsored this legislation despite my concern is testament to the good working relationship I have enjoyed with Ms. Eshoo and Ms. Clinton, and which I trust will continue during this new Congress. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help this legislation become law while ensuring it protects and upholds the sanctity of human life.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, I appreciate this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Ohio, the new Member who just spoke, I appreciate and respect his point of view. I will add, though, that the disgust, the frustration with the ethics violation, the disregard for the public's trust in this body because of a few of our colleagues isn't relegated to one side of the aisle or the other, nor one district or the other. I think all of us in this institution today that took the oath of office are disgusted by the past; and that is why this body that last May passed a comprehensive ethics bill, which mostly was incorporated in this one, ironically, I think, it is fairly humorous, that most of our colleagues on the other side voted against it because it was not good enough, yet substantially similar to the one that is brought forward without our input into the process today. Now I stand here today saying this isn't good enough. We could have done a better job of tightening down with lobbyists and gifts. Frankly, I don't know how to interpret the plane part, but I am concerned about establishing the public trust when someone accepts bribes. In our package that was voted against by a lot of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle that are pounding their chests today, in that was saying that you cannot receive the fruits that you earned during your tenure in this office if you have violated the public's trust. That is not part of the bill that stands before us today. If you have accepted a bribe, you are convicted of a felony and are sitting in jail, you should not be able to accept the part of the government- funded pension or other government-funded benefits that you earned while you were here. You just simply cannot do that. My folks back in Nebraska think that is absolutely absurd. I just wish we had a process in place where we could have worked in a partnership to improve this bill, to make it better. But we didn't have that opportunity, and I don't have the opportunity on behalf of my Nebraskans, who feel that it is absurd that you have cash in a freezer, that you can accept bribes like we had in a California or in an Ohio district, and still accept your pension. I think it is absurd that we don't have that opportunity today. Frankly, the fact that those folks that voted against a comprehensive ethics reform package introduced one without Republican input to improve the bill smacks of partisanship to me. I thought we were going to clear the decks of that and start working together for the public good, and it just doesn't seem like it is happening today. That is a poor start for civility in this body.

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I too am deeply disappointed today. I think part of the message from the electorate was that they want us to work together, that they want us to cooperate for the greater good. And, yes, that people were, at least in Nebraska, very upset with the examples of those who violated the public's trust. We need to work together on an ethics plan. I am pleased that in this rule there are ethics measures that, by the way, the Republicans helped put together many months ago in reaction to the ethics violations we have seen from some of our colleagues. So, as the people want us to work together in a partnership and not in partisanship, what we received was a partisan slap across the face. It is the mismatch between words and actions of which we are speaking today. I have had a bill that was incorporated into the ethics package that we passed last May that the Democrats almost en banc opposed because it wasn't tough enough. The reality is that the package in today's rule, which we had no participation in, is, in many ways, weaker. And one of the examples is the fact that, as I worked on with our Speaker, that if you have violated the rules of this House and the public trust and you took money, you found $90,000 of cold hard cash or you took limousines or whatever the violations were, that you shouldn't be able to leave in the public disgust with the benefits of public service, i.e., a pension. That was in the ethics package passed months ago but isn't in this one. So this is a weaker package. Now, I too wish I would have had the opportunity to take the bill that I have introduced today and did last year and work with our friends on the other side, but, in the partisan slap, have been denied the ability to do so.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disappointment in the rules package we are considering today. The message from the American public last fall was ``we want Republicans and Democrats to work together.'' We all had high expectations for a ``new way of doing business in Washington.'' This past week during the Nation's remembrance of former President Gerald Ford, we were all reminded of the way Republicans and Democrats were able to find common ground to solve the country's problems. There was a time when the two parties could come together in the national interest. Where, Mr. Speaker, did all of those grand and high-minded promises of bipartisanship go? I hope this is not a precedent for how the House will operate during the rest of the 110th Congress. Our constituents expect us to work together and get things done for the good of the country. Included in this rules package are a number of ethics reforms, but they do not go far enough. We must have tougher and stronger ethics reform. Today, there are Members serving in the House who have contributed to the American public's loss of confidence in this body. One Member was found to have $90,000 in cash in his freezer; another Member of the Appropriations Committee established separate entities that were recipients of appropriation funds. Yet, this rules package and the ethics reforms in it do nothing to punish such behavior. We must adopt tougher and stronger measures if we are going to regain the trust of the American public. In my District, Nebraskans sent a clear message that said if Members take bribes and abuse the public's trust, they should not be protected and should not be allowed to reap the benefits of their House service such as a pension paid for by the taxpayers. Under this new Congressional leadership, Nebraska's voice will not be heard. I won't be allowed to even offer an amendment to be denied by the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today legislation that I introduced last year--to deny pension benefits to any Member or government official who is convicted of a crime that violates the public trust. Because of the lack of a fair and open process in this House, I have been denied the opportunity to offer this legislation as an amendment. This is not what American voters wanted to see after last fall's election. We are being denied the chance to work together. We need to restore the public's confidence in this House and one way to do that is to work together to solve the problems facing this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good chairman for bringing this bill to the floor tonight, which also, as the gentleman from Ohio mentioned, does include a consumer protection which I wrote in regarding contact lenses which ensures that manufacturers cannot have tie-in agreements with retail shops where they are the exclusive providers of the contact lens, therefore thwarting the law that we passed in Congress several years ago, about 3 years ago, that allows the consumer the opportunity to shop around. I want to make sure that consumers have that right to shop around. That is what this protection allows. I want to thank the folks that have allowed this to come to the floor tonight in our last night, regardless of the vehicle. It is a good consumer protection measure.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3248, the Lifespan Respite Care Act. This legislation would allow States to establish Lifespan Respite Systems to improve respite access and quality for the Nation's family caregivers regardless of age or disability. I am proud to say that the legislation is modeled on the Nebraska Lifespan Respite program, which was championed legislatively in the State by my good friend and colleague, State Senator Dennis Byars, and has made a world of difference to families in our State. I am also proud to say that this year's national respite conference was hosted by the Lifespan Respite program and the Nebraska Respite Coalition. With passage of the Nation's second piece of State legislation on lifespan respite in 1999, the Nebraska Health and Human Services System established the Nebraska Respite Network, a statewide system for the coordination of respite resources that serve the lifespan. Six regional entities are responsible for information and referral for families who need access to respite, recruitment of respite providers, public awareness, coordinating training opportunities for providers and consumers, quality assurance and program evaluation. The Lifespan Respite Subsidy component is available to persons of all ages across the lifespan with special needs who are not receiving respite services from any other government program. The stress of continuous care giving can take its toll on family caregivers and is one of the greatest contributing factors to caregiver illness, marital discord that can lead to divorce, and costly out of home placements. Respite has been shown to alleviate these symptoms and even help delay or avoid foster care or nursing home placements. In Nebraska, a statewide survey of a broad array of caregivers who had been receiving respite found that 79 percent of the respondents reported decreased stress and 58 percent reported decreased isolation. In addition, one out of four families with children under 21 reported they were less likely to place their children in out-of-home care once respite services were available. The Nebraska program works because it is efficient and maximizes existing resources across all age groups and disabilities by developing unique partnerships with Medicaid, early intervention, area agencies on aging and other state and federal programs that provide or support respite. The regional Lifespan Respite Network Coordinator recruits respite providers for Medicaid, as well as for the Lifespan Respite Program itself. The coordinator meets with staff from HHS, Developmental Disabilities, the Early Intervention program, and others on a monthly basis in order to determine need. Respite providers are recruited and trained to fill the gaps, and providers list are shared. Most importantly, all family caregiver populations must be served equally with no preference for or limitation by age or disability. The Nebraska Lifespan Respite Program was cited as exemplary by the National Conference of State Legislatures as a model for States to emulate in implementing community-based long term care, and highlighted by the National Governors Association for best practices. I would urge the Secretary in implementing this program to base its program guidance on the success of the Nebraska model, especially in its ability to reach out to and serve all age groups, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation today.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 843, the Combating Autism Act. As a member of the congressional Coalition on Autism Research and Education CARE, as well as a cosponsor of the companion bill, H.R. 2421, I strongly support the provisions of the bill. This important legislation will improve the lives of those affected by expanding and improving detection, care and treatment of autism spectrum disorders. The establishment of centers of excellence for autism research will enable us to conduct cutting edge research and apply it in the most effective manner possible to treat our young citizens affected by autism in the best way we can. I want to give a special thanks to the many parents, siblings, families and friends of those with autism, especially my constituents in the Second District of Nebraska. Your support of autism issues, and specifically this legislation, has been crucial to the advancement of this bill. I congratulate you and other advocates for your tireless work. I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of S. 843.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1028 to support the goals and ideals of Red Ribbon Week. Red Ribbon Week was established 21 years ago to honor the life of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena, who died in the line of duty while fighting illicit drugs. More than 100 organizations across the United States, including the Nation's Governors and community organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs of America, have joined in this effort to promote drug-free communities. As a Representative of the great State of Nebraska, I recognize the importance of such efforts to prevent abuse of dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine. The war against the rising tide of meth in the Mid- West and on the West Coast--and now even in some parts of the East Coast--can only be effectively fought through partnerships with law enforcement, government, social service agencies, communities, schools, parents and children. The meth problem affects all aspects of our communities and requires comprehensive solutions at all levels of government and in partnership with private charities and volunteer organizations. We need effective drug prevention and education programs; greater parental involvement and public awareness; and law enforcement and social services coordination in order to rescue our communities from the ruination and devastation of meth. The recent survey of 500 county law enforcement officials found that meth abuse is still the number 1 drug problem nationwide. Many States, including Nebraska, have enacted laws to control access to Sudafed and other drugs that act as the basis for ``cooking'' meth. The number of Mom and Pop meth labs dropped by an astounding 70 percent in Nebraska and other states. However, 85 percent of law enforcement officials report the meth problem is still growing due to drug trafficking from ``superlabs'' in Mexico. This Congress can best honor the memory of Agent Camarena by continuing a strong battle in the ``new front'' of the war against drugs: methamphetamine. I urge my colleagues to join me today in not only supporting our law enforcement officers who risk their lives each day to keep our communities safe, but to join me and other Members of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine by pledging to stop the scourge of meth across our Nation.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on September 28, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall 503, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act. Please let the record reflect that I enter an ``aye'' vote on this rollcall.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Colonel Robert R. Tovado, the Commander of University of Nebraska Lincoln Air Force ROTC Detachment 465, who is retiring after three decades of service in the United States Air Force. Colonel Tovado entered the Air Force in 1976 through AFROTC at the University of Northern Colorado. Since that time, he has served American in almost every major operation U.S. forces have been engaged in around the world. During his career, the Colonel has served in Operations Just Cause, Restore Hope, Sea Signal, Desert Strike, Desert Focus, Joint Guard, and Southern Watch. Prior to his time in Nebraska, Colonel Tovado worked for General Tommy Franks as the Director of Manpower and Personnel at United States Central Command and he served as the Coalition/Joint Director of Manpower and Personnel deployed to Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Since his arrival at the University of Nebraska, Colonel Tovado has taken his valuable military experience and applied it to his teaching and building of America's next generation of great leaders. During his tenure in Lincoln, the Colonel has led his staff and students in providing over 4,000 volunteer hours in support of a plethora of community service organizations for the betterment of Nebraska and her citizens. Furthermore, he has helped countless students pursue their academic dreams by his efforts in bringing over two million dollars in scholarship money to the University of Nebraska. Under his command, UNL Air Force ROTC Detachment 465 was named the Right of Line Award winner for 2005 for the best Air Force ROTC Detachment in the nation. Furthermore, in 2005 Detachment 465 was also home to the Number One cadet in the nation. This marks the first time an Air Force ROTC detachment has received both awards during the same year and is a reflection of the work and leadership of Colonel Tovado. Over the last three years of Colonel Tovado's tenure, 77 new lieutenants, including one of my former congressional staff members, have been commissioned into the United States Air Force. As I have been informed, the Colonel inspired and taught all of these great young men and women what it meant to be the best in the nation. These 77 young officers are now serving all across our globe defending America for future generations. This is perhaps the greatest legacy of Colonel Robert R. Tovado. In closing, I join all Americans in wishing Colonel Tovado, his wife Wendy, and his family, heartfelt thanks on behalf of a grateful nation for his dedication and service to freedom.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the Omaha Federation of Advertising will be celebrating their 100th anniversary at a centennial gala event on November 18, 2006 with the induction of their first Legends of Advertising Hall of Fame honorees, a salute to the top 100 local ad campaigns and a theatrical retrospect of the last 100 years. Founded in 1906, the Omaha Federation of Advertising, OFA, is considered the unifying voice of advertising in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area. The professional association is made up of and represents corporate advertising, agencies, marketing, media, printing, suppliers, academia and other advertising and public relations professionals. As advocates for the rights of advertisers, they educate policy makers, the media and the general public on the value advertising brings to the well-being of our community and the economy. The OFA hosts a multitude of events and activities throughout the year that serve the public and attract a wide audience. A small example of such activities include: a national award-winning program to introduce college students to advertising professionals, called Meet the Pros; an annual awards event recognizing creative excellence, called the American Advertising Awards; a scholarship program in which thousands of dollars are awarded to students attending accredited universities and/or advertising/design trade schools; and a public service program committed to the goal of helping deserving non-profit groups to achieve their marketing/communication goals. I'd like to congratulate the OFA on their 100th anniversary and wish them the best in the next century.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. This critical legislation will help prevent the dangerous potential for creation of human ``fetus farms'' to harvest children's tissues and organs for medical research. It would make it a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison to knowingly buy or sell human fetal tissue from a pregnancy deliberately initiated for the purpose of harvesting organs and tissues. Unless S. 3504 is enacted, the potential for exploitation of women and children is tremendous. Animal research has already been conducted that raises severe ethical concerns for application in humans. For example, Advanced Cell Technology attempted to clone cow fetuses, implanted the fetuses within a womb and grew them for three to four months before aborting the cows to harvest their liver tissue for research. In addition, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology cloned and grew mouse fetuses to correct an immune deficiency, but the research was only successful when the mouse was aborted at the newborn stage for cell harvesting. Some researchers have already indicated that cells or tissues from human fetuses are more desirable than embryonic stem cells because they are more developed and adaptable for transplantation. While the biotechnology industry claims no interest in maintaining cloned human embryos past 14 days, it has supported State laws such as the New Jersey law which allows ``fetus farming'' into the ninth month of pregnancy to harvest more developed organs and tissues. The potential to pay women to act as incubators for children to be grown and aborted for ``research'' is easily seen. S. 3504 would prevent this horrific situation, and I am proud President Bush has agreed to sign this legislation into law upon passage by Congress today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 3504 to uphold human life and protect women and children from exploitation in unethical research.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment. Last Friday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Nebraska constitutional amendment protecting marriage between one man and one woman, and affirming the legal protections and benefits reserved to this fundamental union. The amendment was approved by an overwhelming 70 percent majority in 2000. Nationwide, 45 states have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman or expressly prohibited same-sex marriage. Twenty states approved constitutional amendments upholding marriage; six states will vote on an amendment in November; and eight states are considering sending constitutional amendments to voters in 2006 or 2008. The 16 states that approved constitutional amendments since 2004 did so by an average 72 percent voter majority. Even voters in Massachusetts--the first state to have its supreme court unilaterally declare same-sex marriage as constitutional--may have the opportunity to uphold marriage. The state's high court ruled last week that legislative efforts to put a same-sex marriage ban on the 2008 ballot could move forward. Recent court rulings in New York, Tennessee and Georgia have also upheld marriage rights. The Federal Marriage Protection Amendment under consideration today would prohibit any governmental entity--whether in the legislative, executive or judicial branch at all levels of government--from altering the definition of marriage. It does not discriminate against homosexuals; it upholds and recognizes the importance of marriage between a man and a woman for the well-being of children and society at large. Mr. Speaker, the American people want the Marriage Protection Amendment to be approved. Their will is clearly reflected through the overwhelming majorities voting for marriage protection initiatives in the states. We have a responsibility to children and families nationwide to send a clear message today that marriage will be upheld and protected. We also have a sacred duty to future generations to preserve marriage as the fundamental building block of society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 88 today.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for introducing this modest amendment to help families across the Nation that are dealing with meth issues, and not only the families that have to deal with them but the law enforcement community, the people on the front line. I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Reichert. Your experience and background as a law enforcement officer, somebody on the front line, has been instrumental to us in the United States Congress in this fight to empower our local police officers. But I also want to thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee in charge, because Chairman Wolf knows what drugs has done to our families. The budget that was sent over to us zeroed these out, eliminated them. The chairman fought to get as much put back as he could, but we still need more. So I appreciate your efforts. In Omaha, we have a real meth problem. It is affecting suburban housewives, teenagers, all segments and demographics of our community. I have personally seen how it ravages these families. I think it is important that we step up our efforts to rid this nasty drug from our communities. The only way to rid it from our communities is to empower the local law enforcement agencies. Now, we have passed a meth law in this House that allows for pseudoephedrine to be put behind the counter. That makes it hard to do the labs now. Frankly, in States like Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma and Missouri that have done that, they have seen the number of labs go down. But now we have got gangs running meth from super labs in Mexico. So as we take labs down, we still get inundated in our communities from these drugs from gangs now. And so it is extremely important that those people that know the gang members, know what they are doing can run the task forces. And here is a chart up here that shows just with meth, from the task forces funded by this 5.54 kilos of meth taken off. The National Association of Counties reports that 58 percent of counties ranked methamphetamine as their No. 1 drug problem in 2005, and CDC estimates at least 20,000 Americans die each year from drug abuse/overdose. Byrne-JAG grants incentivize multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement and cooperation between local, state and federal law enforcement agents. These grants are the primary federal funds to discourage domestic production of methamphetamine. The White House's 2007 budget request to Congress again eliminates funding for Byrne. In 2004, Congress provided $634 million to law enforcement agencies nationwide. Last year, the Senate voted to provide $900 million--closer to the original funding level for this program-- but the proposed bill provides just $367 million. Since FY01, funding has been cut from over $1 billion to less than $367 million in the H.R. 5672. The effect of these cuts has been clear: many States have been forced to cut or completely eliminate their gang and drug task forces. The $558 million reported as the funding level of Byrne-JAG includes $115 million in discretionary earmarks, and $75 million for Boys and Girls Clubs--leaving $367 million for state formula grants supporting drug and violent crime task forces. The proposed $367 million funding level would cripple the effectiveness of drug task forces nationwide, and jeopardize the gains made in reducing nationwide violent crime to a 30-year low. The collaborative task forces built over the past 15 years to combat drugs cannot be easily rebuilt. State and local agencies will take the brunt of meth investigations without federal assistance. More than 90 percent of drug arrests nationwide are made by state and local law enforcement. Tom Constantine, former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) testified that the majority of DEA cases begin as referrals from local and multi-jurisdictional drug investigations. He was unaware of any major DEA case during his tenure that did not originate from information gathered at the state and local level. Last year, Byrne task forces nationwide seized 5,600 meth labs, 55,000 weapons, and massive quantities of narcotics, including 2.7 million grams of meth. These results demonstrate the power of using federal dollars to leverage state and local partnerships. Nebraska will be forced to eliminate 9 of 11 task forces unless Byrne-JAG funding is increased; Texas has already eliminated its task forces due to lack of funding, and New Jersey is considering the same course of action. Minnesota may be forced to discontinue its rural drug task forces, and only three of Missouri's 28 Byrne task forces would survive on state funding alone. The fight against meth is the frontline of the Nation's war on drugs. The fastest-growing drug in the Nation, meth has produced a wider and more expensive array of problems than any other narcotic we have ever faced. And midwestern states such as Nebraska bear much of the brunt. According to Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, 60 percent of inmates in Nebraska jails have problems with meth. The number of people in Nebraska jails for possessing, selling or manufacturing meth has more than doubled since 1999. Jails are overcrowded with meth addicts, many of whom require special medical care. Meth labs quickly become toxic waste dumps that can only be cleaned up with large amounts of manpower and financial resources. Worst of all, children in homes where meth is used or made are more often violently abused and neglected, and exposed to highly toxic chemicals. Nationwide, law enforcement officers have dismantled more than 50,000 clandestine meth labs since 2001. Nearly half of those incidents occurred in just nine Midwestern and Plains states, including Nebraska. The number of meth labs in Nebraska rose from 37 in 1999 to almost 300 in 2004. Fortunately, my State joined a growing coalition of States fighting against meth by enacting a new law in September to restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine. Since that time, the number of meth labs has fallen by a phenomenal 70 percent. However, the problem is far from being solved since 80 percent of the meth in Nebraska is being trafficked from Mexico. This meth is far more addictive than what can be cooked in a typical ``Mom and Pop'' meth lab. Thanks to Nebraska's new law, instead of using 80 percent of their resources to fight the home labs that comprised only 20 percent of the State's meth problem, Nebraska narcotic officers can now use more of their time to stop the inflow of Mexican meth. Congress has played a role in combating the Nation's growing meth problem through Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants for State and local law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, these grants are endangered by the failure at the White House to recognize the significance of Byrne grants in combating meth and other illegal drugs nationwide. Byrne task forces are the underpinning of our Nation's successful drug control strategy that brought us the lowest violent crime rates in 30 years. We must not turn back the clock in the war on drugs.