Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Then let's bring him up. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. TERRY. Well, I thank you for your input. I just fear that the policies that we're looking at to adopt in this Nation are going to jeopardize our security, jeopardize our future. We need to look at a balance. I appreciate you being here, and all of the others that came to speak.

Mr. TERRY. We talked about jobs, that we are losing our manufacturing, our middle class. And what a lot of people don't understand is it is our energy policy that is driving those jobs offshore. Yes, there are some that are offshoring, taking maybe telephone answering jobs over to India. But our policies are driving a lot of our good manufacturing jobs away.

Mr. TERRY. So just what we know, 50 to 100 years, and, by the way, I understand one of our largest pockets of natural gas that is in Wyoming was made into a Federal monument or a park, making it federally illegal to even drill there. So that is what happens when we find new pockets. We rule them off limits. That just astounds me that we have got that much. And when we are talking about securing our future, wanting to become independent, the other side and us are worried about global warming. And this is a clean fuel. You have stressed it. It is a clean fuel, which is why the policies that we are seeing are moving electrical generations towards natural gas. It makes no sense to me that we won't increase supply at the same time.

Mr. TERRY. You mean we won't even be able to measure how much?

Mr. TERRY. I really appreciate your tutorial there. What is our supply in the United States of natural gas? We had the gentlewoman from Ohio that was down here that was talking about petroleum and how limited we may be at our peak here within the next 30 years. How about natural gas?

Mr. TERRY. Because of our natural gas policy.

Mr. TERRY. And all of those jobs go to those countries now.

Mr. TERRY. Dow Chemical has thousands of employees. They're just one of many petrochemicals that rely on natural gas. If the price of natural gas remains high or goes higher, where do they go? I yield back to you.

Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate your comments and putting more meat onto the bones here. And I'll mention that in my district, again, it's about 70 percent, almost 70 percent coal. We do have nuclear. We use natural gas only as a peaking, which is basically this time of year. It was 99 degrees at home today, and I'll guarantee you Omaha Public Power is running their peaking plant during the day so that people can run their air conditioners. And there's a lot of things that we could do on the conservation side, as you said, and we need to push those. But at the same time, we seem to be adopting policies that restrict the supply. And I think even though the policies that are going to be proposed here don't necessarily further restrict than already have been natural gas, what they do is move more energy, or force more energy to electrical generation by natural gas without doing anything to increase the supply of that natural gas. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania has come to the floor many times. He is one of the leaders in the House in discussion of what we need to do to increase supplies of natural gas, and how ridiculous it is that our prices in the United States are probably five times more than anywhere else in the rest of the world. So I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. TERRY. You mean, if an investor might go to jail because a bird flies into a turbine under one of the bills that may come to this floor in the next couple of weeks, that would hinder investment?

Mr. TERRY. So in one of the bills in one of our committees, it specifically makes it a criminal act to have a turbine that would contribute to the death of a migrating bird. Does that help or hinder the rollout of that alternative energy?

Mr. TERRY. Your vision would include wind energy, solar energy?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about energy security. We have talked about energy independence, and I think that is a subset of energy security. We have to look at the world in total, and we have to realize that we need to secure our own energy sources if we are going to secure the future of our country. Even as I look at probably the most immediate issue, the war with terrorists, their actions against us, but if we take that and look at the world in total, when I see the lowest common denominator, it's energy. It is a fight or a battle for energy. Those who are going to be able to power themselves without relying on others will not only have more options and purer choices in foreign policy matters, but the reality is in this new emerging global economy, those that cannot be economically hijacked by foreign countries are going to be the winners. I want to make sure that we have a policy in place that recognizes the need for independence so that we can secure our future. Now this means that we have to do some things. I don't know how many of you out there remember high school economics. I remember Mr. Croft's lessons at Northwest High School, and basic supply and demand. When we look at resolving our energy issues, and, by the way, a barrel of oil hit over $75 today, we have to look at both sides of the equation. That's what we tried to do in 2005, the energy bill that was signed by the President. We tried to increase the amount of supply of energy and, at the same time, looking at how to conserve or reduce the demand for energy in our country. Now, overlaying this discussion about energy, supply and demand, is a new discussion amongst us about global warming. This is driving our discussions on energy today. I fear that we have become, how do I say this, but so spooked by global warming that we are willing to go to the extreme and hurt ourselves. And I really believe that part of my role and the role of the minority party here is maybe to swing back to a more practical level as we talk about energy and global warming. Now, what a lot of people don't know when we talk about global warming or the CO2 emissions, that is the gas that is depleting our ozone, the vast majority of that is created naturally, not by humans. Yes, human activity that I am going to talk about in a minute does contribute to that. Now, as I understand, the major contributor and the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions is livestock. So, of course, some have joined hands with PETA to make sure that we eliminate all the cattle, pigs, chickens, and we should just become vegetarians. The next is humans. Not by our activity of burning coal and the coal- generated electrical plant, but just ourselves and our existence, our exhaling. And, therefore, we should have mandated policies to control population, i.e., abortion, and reduce the number of people on Earth. That is one of the policies out there. Now, the discussion that we are going to have here in the House in the next 2 weeks is going to be on what energy policies do we implement here to lower CO2 emissions and become energy independent. Well, the reality of it is, the policies that we are going to hear from the majority party will help to some small degree on the demand side and absolutely drive up or put more pressures, increased pressures, on supply, because they are going to eliminate some of our sources that we use for energy, make it more difficult and more costly to use and, therefore, create bigger demand. What happens when there is bigger demand? Prices go up. So any of you out there that want to turn on a light, use your computer, heat or cool your homes, drive to work, under the policies that we are looking at adopting in this House over the next couple weeks, expect to pay more. Now, this is why I think it is becoming so important here. I want to get back to our supply-and-demand lesson here. In this chart, the United States, because of our economic engine, our ingenuity, our intellectual properties that are being put into action, we are the largest consuming Nation. Now, look down here, we also rank number one in oil importation. We have to import to drive our economy, literally drive our economy, about 65 percent of our energy needs. Now, that is 12 billion barrels that we have to import. When I think of energy, I have to separate it into two different issues. One is driving. About two-thirds of the oil that we import goes to refining into gasoline, to use in jet fuel and trucks to move goods from one place to another, as well as cars to get us to the grocery store, to get us back to work. If we are going to become independent, we have to look at a full array of fuels that we can generate here. That means biofuels to some extent. That means that we adopt policies on hybrid type of cars or other experimental cars that are out there. And, by the way, that does lower emissions. But remember, car emissions are pretty far down the list of what actually contributes to CO2 emissions and the ozone. We can then look at a lot of other technologies. I am a proponent of hydrogen, for example. Now, let's look at the other side of generating electricity that powers our economy and is part of the equation. Most of our electrical generation, about 52 percent nationally, is from coal. In the policies adopted by various committees of this House and that are going to be brought to the floor in some capacity either in the next 2 weeks or maybe even September, they make it much more difficult to use coal. I mentioned, 52 percent of the electricity in this Nation is generated from coal. In my district, it is over 70 percent. It is the cheapest way to generate electricity. It is plentiful. We have something like a 500-year supply of coal to generate electricity in this country. So I feel that instead of doing what the majority party wants to do and shut down coal-fired plants, crippling our ability to generate electricity; and, by the way, nuclear is bad, too. Remember that, no nuclear power? Let's make it as difficult. Let's not find ways to deal with the waste. And so if we shut down coal, make it more costly at least to do it, no nuclear, that means you have one area to really rely on in generating electricity, and that is natural gas. Oh, and by the way, our policies don't allow for any more domestic supply of natural gas and oil, so we are going to shift everything to natural gas to generate. We barely allow it to be imported. We can't drill any more for it within our own 48 continental United States or offshore any more than we are doing today. I don't understand this energy policy that is going to be brought to us. It seems to me to be a negative energy policy. In fact, I think the only energy that is involved in this bill is perhaps if we burn the darn thing we could generate some power. But, as was just mentioned to me, that would result in CO2 emission, so we can't even do that. Mr. Speaker and the American public, we need to become more engaged in this. We are on a path to cripple our economy. China is adding at least one new power plant a week based on coal. They have no problems using coal. I saw a statistic that was 2 years old, so it is probably much more significant now, but the Chinese were adding 120,000 cars per day. That is not even talking about India, whose economy is expanding at near double digits as well, and they are adding power in their cars. The competition is extreme for oil. We need to recognize that. We need to expand it. That doesn't mean that we shut down our domestic fossil fuels. That means we add to it so that we become independent and secure our Nation's future. At this time, I yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise not only in opposition to the rule, but respectfully request that my colleagues join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. I have drafted an amendment that would freeze our salaries for this year, much like we voted to do in the last year. We are not going to have the opportunity then to have a straight-up vote on that amendment during this appropriations bill. So our one opportunity to voice our opinion on the COLA, the cost-of-living increase, which is somewhere probably around 2.5 percent, I don't know the number itself, but that happens automatically unless we have a straight-up vote to suspend it, and we are going to be denied that opportunity. So I respectfully request that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in voting against the previous question. Now, let me state some of the reasons why I think it is important that we freeze our salaries again for next year. First of all, I don't think we deserve it. Our approval rating with the American public is 14 percent, according to Gallup, the lowest in the history of polling. Obviously we are doing something wrong if the people have such little confidence in us. I think there are a variety of reasons why the people have less confidence in us now than they even did last year, and I think one is because of maybe the viciousness and the partisanship is probably at an all-time record high. We have our political opponents that think we are down and want to put their heels on our throats and keep us that way, and I am not sure that is what the American people want. But then let's look at effectiveness. In the major bills that have come through the House of Representatives, the congressional leadership, and I say that in toto, House and Senate, have gotten very few bills to the White House for signature. In fact, we have done a variety of resolutions and bills, many of them condemning what Republicans had done in the past. But out of 60 bills that have gone through the House in our first 6 months, since January 4, 2 have been signed into law, and that is it. Now, if we were on a baseball team, and we hit 2 out of 60, or less than 1 percent, a .033 percentage, we would be sent down to Single A ball for such a pathetic percentage. So we are not performing well enough to deserve it. Now, I do want to bring up one other aspect. Usually what happens with the cost-of-living increase is we have a token vote on the previous question, and there is an arrangement basically for the votes to be there to allow the previous question to go forward for the rule, with a gentleman's agreement that those who vote ``yes'' won't have to pay for it in the elections. But the reality of that is that is off the table. This is just one of the many ads run against Republican incumbents who voted for the previous question last year. This is paid for by the Democrat Congressional Committee against Incumbents Who Vote for the Previous Question. So I think it is important to warn everyone that comes here that is going to vote on the previous question, which is the vote for a congressional pay freeze for our next year's salaries, that if you are a Republican, DCCC is going to run ads against you, and since that agreement is off the table, if you are on my friend's side of the aisle over here, the Democrat side, the agreement is off also if you vote for it. Maybe the Republican National Congressional Committee will be running ads against you for voting for a pay raise, and maybe it is because we haven't made the Bush cuts permanent that will raise taxes on American families, or maybe it is just because of the lack of productivity in the House that protects our families. There are a variety of reasons. But the reality is there is no such agreement left, folks. Vote against the previous question and protect yourself.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Lowey Amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. This amendment is a poison pill that will result in a veto by the President. The original Mexico City policy, which was emasculated in the Appropriations Committee, prevents U.S. population assistance funds from going to foreign organizations which ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.'' This was done to ensure compliance with the long-standing law that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to finance abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. The Stupak-Smith amendment restores the Mexico City policy to its original intent. On the other hand Mr. Chairman, the Lowey amendment, masks the effort to fund pro-abortion organizations with U.S. tax dollars. This amendment would provide economic support in the form of valuable commodities and other items to organizations that promote and provide abortion as a method of family planning. Additionally, this amendment does not increase USAID funding for contraceptives, as the amendment's supporters have claimed. In fact, it does nothing to increase contraception and simply diverts contraceptive commodities from organizations that DO NOT promote or provide abortion to organizations that DO promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning. This ``stealth amendment'' further undermines the Mexico City policy that President Reagan established in 1984. Prior to the implementation of the Mexico City policy by President Reagan in 1984, organizations which support abortion such as Planned Parenthood kept two sets of books in order to qualify for U.S. funds: one tracking the use of taxpayer dollars for services such as family planning counseling and contraception distribution, and another chronicling the use of private organization funds for abortion-related expenses. Mr. Chairman, we all know that money is fungible. Such double bookkeeping ensured that taxpayer dollars for family planning inevitably subsidized abortion by freeing up more private funds for this purpose. The Mexico City policy was adopted to stop this practice. Mr. Chairman, while President Clinton revoked this policy, it was reinstated by President Bush to ensure American citizens are not forced to pay for a procedure many find morally abhorrent. Additionally Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the President has threatened to veto any legislation that weakens existing pro-life protections. Opposing the Lowey amendment and supporting the Stupak-Smith amendment will ensure that the hard work our colleagues have put into this appropriations bill is not for nothing. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment and support the Stupak-Smith Amendment to restore the Mexico City Policy to its original intent.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Wynn amendment to the Energy & Water Appropriations bill. Contrary to statements in the Energy & Water Committee Report questioning the level of hydrogen technology research and development, fuel cells technology is much closer than 2050. Mr. Chairman, our Nation took 60 years from the first Wright Brothers flight to putting a man on the Moon; it will not take us that long to make hydrogen fuel cells mainstream. Hydrogen cars and fueling stations exist; we are almost there. The funding levels in the Fiscal Year 2008 Energy & Water appropriations bill will help provide the final push we need to overcome remaining obstacles and see hydrogen cars and fueling stations become a reality. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, Hydrogen Fuel Cells are already in use in larger facilities. In my own District, the Henry Doorly Zoo uses fuel cells to generate electricity for its Lied Jungle exhibit, making it more energy efficient. Additionally, the U.S. Air Force is using fuel cell technology for its Global Observer program. Mr. Chairman, energy security and independence have to become a reality. Hydrogen is a potentially limitless supply and a renewable, clean resource that deserves to be funded at its current level, if not more.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment. As a member of the Energy Committee, I want to debunk a couple of myths that have been perpetrated today in the debate. First of all, that this was done hastily and thoughtlessly. The fact of the matter is the issue of the transmission of electricity has been an issue for many years. Many hearings have been held, much debate. It was part of the Energy Act. What we have to do is resolve the issue how we get energy from generator A to consumer B. In between we have to figure out how to do that. Myth number two is that this runs roughshod over States' and communities' rights. The reality is that they are involved in the process. They are involved in working with FERC, and FERC has to work with them on the siting issues. And only when there is a conflict do they get to break that conflict by rising above it. We in this Nation have to figure out how we get electricity from point A to consumer B. Think of this corridor as a transportation highway. And when we think of it as a highway, we understand why we have to do it this way.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to reduce the size of this bill, the cost of this bill. I have got to tell you I grew up in the late 1970s. I remember pretty distinctly the policies of Jimmy Carter. I remember the high unemployment rates. I remember the high inflation rates. I recall getting my driver's license and getting that 1970 station wagon to drive and waiting in a line for gas two blocks long; and when you got there, there was one pump yet working and the others had the 11 by 8 piece of paper that said ``out of gas'' on it. I think those are the policies which some of my friends on the left are advocating today. I just have to openly wonder how well Honda Civics would work in the sand in Iraq if we can't use military vehicles because of their gas mileage. But let's get back to the real issue of what we're talking about here today, and that's ways of controlling spending. Yes, it is showing a difference between the majority party and the minority party in the sense of spending. We are here fighting to reduce the size of their bill. We would like to bring it to last year's level where it was only a 1.6 percent increase, and they were yakking about how we needed to spend more, and when they got in control, they were able to do that. They have a bill here before us today that increases the spending way above the President's request. This amendment just simply brings it down, $1.13 billion to the President's request. So either way we can fight to reduce the size of their bills, and last week's bill. Again, they were both double-digit increases. I think this type of debate is healthy. It also does show, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, that there are policy differences. There are priority differences between the two parties, and we are showing how we are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say I support this 1 percent, just like I did last year and the year before. Just to make sure that the American public understands, this is 1 percent off of the nearly 5 percent increase. So it isn't even a reduction from last year's number of 1 percent. It is simply shaving 1 percent off of the increase. I came down here because I heard some of the speakers on the other side, or at least one, that was talking about they had to correct the problems of the Republicans spending like drunken sailors, which kind of amazed me considering that the debate on the House floor in the last 2 years on appropriations was how we weren't giving enough money. When I looked up to see what the Republican bill was last year when we were in the majority, it was a 1.5-percent increase versus the nearly 5 percent this time. So they are up here talking about an increase of about 2\1/2\ times, maybe three times what we originally proposed last year. And by the way, I supported the 1 percent when it was only a 1.5-percent increase below the rate of inflation. I think that is the type of drunken spending that the American taxpayers told us in the last election that they did not want. They want that type of fiscal restraint, not two or three times the rate of inflation. They want fiscal responsibility injected back into our reasoning and the bills that we are passing. So I think a reduction of this 4.5-, 4.7-percent increase is simply the responsible thing to do. The gentleman from Georgia, I appreciate you bringing this 1 percent. I think that this is something that the voters, strike voters, the American public thinks we should be doing this year. We come off the heels last week of voting for bills with double-digit increases. So this is a time to inject some reasonableness.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Molly Lloyd, who has recently retired from my congressional staff after 8 years of dedicated and excellent service to the constituents of the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. With a 1-year-old daughter, Ellie, and 5-year-old daughter, Emma, she and her husband, Mark, are devoting their time to their family, which makes a tribute to her all the more bittersweet. I wish the Lloyds all the happiness in the world as they embark on the next stage of their lives together. Molly is a lifelong Nebraskan and was born to proud parents Kay and Bob Koozer in Omaha. She graduated from Westside High School in 1991 and attended Hastings College where she earned a bachelor's degree in communications in only 3 years. After college, she worked to elect Mayor Hal Daub for the city of Omaha and served as his director of public affairs until 1997. I was fortunate to gain her as a member of my congressional staff upon my election in 1998. In fact, although people in the community criticized me for hiring someone so young to become the director of my Omaha office, their criticisms were soon silenced as her talents and her commitment to selfless public service became obvious to the entire community. Her strong leadership skills and fierce dedication to conservative principles have served my office well. Molly knows her hometown inside and out and is an active member of the community, including volunteering and advocating for causes and organizations such as the Joslyn Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, and as a founder of the Leadership Circle to help the next generation of women leaders enter public service. Despite her departure from our Omaha office staff, we know Molly will continue to do great things for the betterment of our State and community. I appreciate Molly's friendship, and I respect her dedication and invaluable contributions over the past eight years. I trust Molly will succeed in all her future endeavors. I am proud to call her a friend and to congratulate and honor her today for all that she has accomplished. I wish her many blessings and much happiness as she begins this new part of her life. Although I am tremendously sorry to see her leave our office, her young daughters will now be privileged to receive the full-time benefits of her extraordinary talents.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Thank you for your explanation. I think, coming here with amendments that cut the amount of this bill, even if we can reduce it from 13.6 to 13 percent or down to something reasonable like the rate of inflation, 2 or 3 percent or 4 percent, then at least that puts it in the realm of what's reasonable. But this hypocrisy is just really frustrating me.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your patience as some of us exercise our frustration and try and make a point or two. And I want to commend the gentlelady from Virginia for offering this amendment to cut $1.241 million from the Office of General Counsel and the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account from the fiscal year 2008 level that's being proposed here. It would still be an increase, but there's two areas that I want to highlight with my frustration, and one is, with an overall level of antagonism and kind of vitriolic partisanship that's occurring here, and I think a lot of it's a frustration or results from our frustration. For example, in the last year or so, as our friends in the now majority, then minority, were bringing up and talking about how we were spending so much and that we were out of control, and I've got to tell you, I voted against some of our appropriation bills because I thought that they were too high. The interesting part is when people in my district would come up, having bought into this rhetoric, I said, but you don't understand that we're fighting with them every day to keep it as low as it is. I said, if they're in charge, just wait. Well, here we are with the first bill, and it's a 13.6 percent increase over last year's appropriation. And we had a speaker up here earlier that talked about building that base. You increase it 13.6, and then next year, when you increase it 13.6, just the exponential increases in the budget. When you look at those that we passed last year, we are barely above the inflation rate in these discretionary accounts, but yet we were criticized by the now majority for being too ``spendy.'' So I see the irony, and most of it was, you know, we tried to tell people last year that this is just their campaign nasty rhetoric. But it seems odd to me that just their first bill they're going to increase it so dramatically. Now, I'll tell you another area of my frustration was coupled with the criticism from the now majority last year about earmarks and the process. And we passed a bill last year that altered the process for earmarks, and it was one that I thought was very appropriate because it dealt with earmarks by spreading sunshine on the process. And I really believe that sunshine is always the best disinfectant. So we adopted a process that embraces sunshine. What it means is that somebody had to have ownership for an earmark request, and that the earmark request had to go through what we would deem regular order, which means you submit it to the appropriations subcommittee staff, then I would go and testify in front of that subcommittee on my earmark; we could have give and take and an intellectual conversation about that, and it would be then voted upon by that subcommittee, which would then raise up to the committee level where that earmark or that Member request would then be reviewed again. The most important part of the process is when you get it out of the appropriations arena and bring it to the House floor where everyone can then see it and determine whether or not there should be an amendment to strike that particular provision from the appropriation bill. This is when everyone then gets to be part of the process of making sure that it's a valid, well, whatever is determined to be valid, but whether it's not, you know, a rainforest in Iowa City or some type of pet project like that. I remember last year we voted probably almost on every appropriation bill at least a dozen amendments to strip out these type of really pet projects that just really didn't mean much for the Nation, but certainly may have meant something for a neighborhood. Now, most of those failed, although I voted in favor of most of them.

Mr. TERRY. I move to strike the last word. I do appreciate the gentleman's secondary or second-degree amendment. The good chairman stood up and gave an eloquent argument about what the primary and secondary amendment is not about. But what it is about, in my opinion, is the hypocrisy in two different areas, the hypocrisy of having boards out front of their offices talking about the mounting debt and then the first appropriation bill increasing the discretionary spending by 13.6 percent. Then, also, the hypocrisy of talking about a culture of corruption and how it spills over to earmarks. Well, the way to cure that is transparency. The first appropriation bill out of the block hides them so we can't debate them on the House floor. That's what this is about. This is why we're upset and coming to the floor and discussing this issue. I'm very frustrated with this process of hiding these earmarks. Well, they are not being hidden, they are just not being included in this bill so they can be dropped in at a later date, at a time when we don't have an opportunity to review them and determine them on an individual basis, the merits or lack of merit for any specific project listed. That's atrocious. What's mostly atrocious and frustrating and hypocritical about it is the fact that these folks campaigned on reforming that, and they were the ones to throw out all the good forms of transparency so they can hide them from us. That's wrong, and that's why we're down here. That's why we're down here, to show our frustration with blowing the lid off the spending now and hiding these earmarks at a time when the people want to know what we're doing with earmarks here. They want them to stop. At the very least, they want to make sure that they're valid ones and not Members' pet projects. Now, the gentleman from North Carolina with the second-degree amendment, you indicated you wanted to expand what Chairman Price mentioned as well. I yield to the gentleman.